Towards a new theory of VET policy

evaluation and engagement:

A multiple stakeholder approach
by
Lois Elaine Parkes

A thesis
submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington
in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Victoria University of Wellington

2012

ABSTRACT
Much current policy analysis assumes that in order to build theory on vocational
education and training (VET) policy evaluation, it is useful to explore evaluation from
the perspectives of its stakeholders. However in practice this does not always
happen. This thesis addresses the limitations that arise in policy analysis on VET
when stakeholders perspectives are ignored or assumed. Industry Training in New
Zealand is used as an example of a VET policy that has experienced increasing
participation by stakeholders, but limited evaluation that largely ignores stakeholders
views.

Taking an inclusive, qualitative approach, this research seeks to unearth how different
stakeholders in the state and tourism sectors evaluate the impact of Industry Training
and how value is created for each from Industry Training engagement. Fifty semistructured interviews were completed with a cross-section of stakeholders
representing policy makers, various industry interest groups, as well as
employers/managers and trainees from four state and tourism sector organisations.
Secondary data, where available, were also analysed, in order to improve the level of
data triangulation.

An analytical framework was developed from the VET, human capital, human
resource development, critical human resource development and policy evaluation
literatures. This framework consists of two broad paradigms of evaluation:

(1) The Strategic HRD/VET policy logic of skills investment equals increased socioeconomic prosperity. This views the outcomes of VET policy as largely value-free,
quantifiable facts that are mutually beneficial to all stakeholders, and which exist
separately from these stakeholders; and,

(2) The Critical HRD/Stakeholder logic that views the outcomes of VET policy as
value-laden, not necessarily mutually beneficial to all stakeholders, nor existing
separately from its stakeholders.

Responses from interviewees were compared against these paradigms and among
different stakeholder groups to answer the main research question: How do
stakeholders evaluate the impact of a VET policy?
The main research outcome is the development of a new framework and theory of
VET policy evaluation, based on a comparative understanding of value creation from
multiple stakeholders perspectives.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My PhD journey would not have been possible without the help and support of a
number of persons. The support provided by the Victoria Management School, both
its academic and administrative staff has been exceptional. Special thanks to my
supervisors, Jane Bryson and Richard Norman, who provided not only excellent
supervision, but friendship and support beyond the call of duty, particularly during my
times of illness.

Without the financial support provided by the Commonwealth Scholarship awarded

by the New Zealand Agency for International Development, this research would not
have materialised.

I also thank my fellow PhD students, who provided laughter, a sounding board, stress
relief and shoulder to cry on, all of which allowed me to maintain my sanity during
this process.

My interview participants as well as numerous other persons from the Industry

Training sector in New Zealand, gave generously of their time, knowledge and
insights. Without their input, this thesis would not exist.

Special mention must be made of my friends at Arise Church, who provided me with
love, balance and emotional support during my time in New Zealand.

I am indebted also to my employer, the Public Service Commission of Jamaica, as

well as work colleagues at the Cabinet Office of Jamaica, who provided me with
financial support, as well as many of the initial ideas for this research.

My family in Jamaica and elsewhere have also been a source of strength and support
throughout. A very special thanks must be given to my father, Wilbert Parkes, the
worlds best single father, who quite literally taught me how to study.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures v
List of Tables.. vi
List of Abbreviations.. vii
Definition of Key Terms. viii
Chapter 1 Introduction..1
Chapter 2 Literature Review.4
Chapter 3 New Zealand Context Industry Training...52
Chapter 4 Methodology75
Chapter 5 Data Analysis Findings from Policymakers and
Industry Interest Groups..............................................92
Chapter 6 Data Analysis Findings from Tourism Organisations..126
Chapter 7 Data Analysis Findings from State
Sector Organisations160
Chapter 8 Discussion and Conclusion...205
Appendix A List of Respondents .236
Appendix B Research Questions Map .238
References ...242

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 The Strategic HRD/VET policy logic47
Figure 2.2 The Stakeholder Theory Logic..48
Figure 2.3 The Critical HRD/Stakeholder Logic50
Figure 3.1 Key players in the Industry Training System53
Figure 5.1 Factors leading to value creation from Industry Training
policymakers and industry interest group perspectives..16
Figure 5.2 Programme Logic for value creation from Industry Training
Perspectives of policymakers and industry interest groups125
Figure 6.1 Programme Logic for Value Creation Tourism organisations157
Figure 7.1 Programme Logic for Value Creation State Sector perspective.203
Figure 8.1 Revised programme logic for VET policy implementation...230

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Dominant forms of skills provision across different countries: Initial
VET and Further VET18
Table 2.2 Emerging paradigms from the literature..45
Table 2.3 Human Capital/VET Policy logic....45
Table 2.4 Strategic HRD Logic...46
Table 2.5 Critical HRD Logic.49
Table 4.1 Numbers of Interviewees and Stakeholder Groups Represented83
Table 4.2 Comparative Analytical Framework86
Table 5.1 Industry Interest Groups and Policymakers Perspectives of
Pedagogical Issues Affecting Industry Training....101
Table 5.2 Summary of Findings Policymakers and Industry
Interest Groups..124
Table 6.1 Industry Training Qualifications pursued in Company B..128
Table 6.2 How value is determined by managers/employers Tourism
Organisations.138
Table 7.1 Description of Trainee Respondents for Department X.164
Table 8.1 - Characteristics of the Strategic HRD/VET logic and the Critical
HRD/Stakeholder Logic.223
Table 8.2 Evaluation methods employed by multiple stakeholders of VET...227
Appendix A: List of Respondents..236
Appendix B: Research Questions Map..238

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ATTTO Aviation, Travel, Tourism Training Organisation
EU European Union
HR Human resources
HRD Human Resource Development
HRM Human Resource Management
HSI Hospitality Standards Institute
ILO International Labour Organisation
ITF Industry Training Federation
ITO Industry Training Organisation
KPI Key performance indicator
LCP Limited credit programme
NQF National Qualifications Framework
NVQ National Vocational Qualification
NZQA New Zealand Qualifications Authority
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PI Performance indicator
PSITO Public Sector Industry Training Organisation
PTE Private training establishment
SME Small and medium enterprise
STM Standard training measure
TEC Tertiary Education Commission
UK United Kingdom
USA United States of America
VET Vocational education and training

vii

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

Competitive Advantage: At the level of firms, it refers to the ability to sustain above
average profits vis--vis other competitor firms (Barney, 1991). At the level of
countries, it refers to the ability of a nation to sustain above average levels of GDP
and standard of living vis--vis other competitor nations (Dunning, 1992).
Human Capital: The knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes embodied in
individuals that facilitate the creation of personal, social and economic well-being
(OECD 2001, p. 18, cited by (Le, Gibson & Oxley, 2005, p. 6).
Human Resource Development (HRD): the study and practice of increasing the
learning capacity of individuals, groups, collectives, and organisations through the
development and application of learning-based interventions for the purpose of
optimising human and organisational growth and effectiveness (Chalofsky, 1992, p.
179).
Industry Training: This is the term used to describe New Zealands largest
vocational education and training policy. It was enacted through the passing of the
Industry Training Act of 1992, which allowed for local industries to establish Industry
Training organisations with responsibility for the design, assessment and organisation
of Industry Training within the national qualifications framework. It describes the
learning and skill development interventions linked to the needs of workers,
workplaces and industry (Key facts about industry training, 2008).

Logic Model: This is a diagrammatic representation of a programme theory (Julian,

Jones, & Deyo, 1995; S. Kaplan & Garrett 2005).

Programme Theory: This term refers to the underlying assumptions about how a
policy initiative or a set of policy actions will work to accomplish the outcomes
intended (Bickman, 2000; Owen, 1998).

viii

Skills: People's capabilities, abilities, knowledge, understanding, motivation,

willingness and ability to use their capabilities and knowledge. It is broken down in
the following categories:
foundation skills - things we need to know, understand and be able to do in
order to do most other things
generic skills - skills that we can apply in a range of contexts, and often
enable use to make use of other skills
technical skills - skills that are often specialised and required for particular
activities (Key facts about Industry Training, 2008, p. 2).
Vocational Education and Training (VET): This is defined as formal, post
secondary, government skills initiatives directed specifically at the employed labour
force. This is distinct from skills initiatives directed at the unemployed or utilised to
foster smoother school to work transitions for youth (Wolf, 2002).

Workplace Learning: This describes all learning that takes place within the contexts
of work, and includes learning acquired through formal training, as well as informal
and tacit learning acquired through work performance and interaction with others in
the work environment (Hager, 2000; Kitching & Blackburn, 2002; Rainbird, Fuller, &
Munro, 2004). This definition also acknowledges that the boundary of the workplace
is permeable, and learning external to the workplace can and does impact learning
within the workplace.

ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
This research has its genesis in a critique of the promises of vocational education and
training (VET) policies promulgated in both developed and developing nations. The
essence of these promises often articulated in VET policy literature is that greater
investment in VET will provide the vehicle that organisations, individual workers and
economies can utilise to arrive at the destination of a number of highs high skills,
high wage jobs, high levels of productivity, and improved levels of socio-economic
performance, along with improving equity outcomes for the disadvantaged in the
labour market. The critique stems from the failure of many economies and individuals
to arrive at this high destination. Additionally, the VET policy literature often fails
to articulate and analyse the distinction among various types of VET interventions.
The factors contributing to the achievement of VET outcomes are often assumed, and
in fact have been under-researched, particularly the roles that various stakeholders
play in the VET engagement process. Finally, VET policies often suffer from
numerous challenges in their evaluation, being limited to the use of a small range of
quantitative indicators, such as numbers of trainees and completion rates for VET
qualifications, underpinned by the assumption that these indicators reflect the
mutually beneficial outcomes for all VET stakeholders. VET policy research suffers
from a paucity of examination of the underlying assumptions of VET, the absence of
the exploration of stakeholders perspectives, and critical analysis of VET policy
evaluative practice. This research seeks to fill these gaps in our understanding of these
issues.

The Industry Training system in New Zealand was chosen as the object of this
research as it represented a VET policy that is managed in a decentralised manner,
involving a number of stakeholders. It is also an example of a policy that carried with
it many promises and aspirations. Over the past twenty years, policymakers in
developed countries have advocated for the expansion of VET policies, with a vision
of creating high-wage, high-skill, and highly productive economies. In New Zealand,
the Industry Training Strategy has been touted as one of the main vehicles for
achieving this goal. Eighteen years since its introduction, New Zealand has seen an
expansion in Industry Training and higher education, but not necessarily the other
highs: high wage, high productivity (Harvey & Harris, 2008; Working Smarter:
1

Driving productivity growth through skills, 2008, p. 8). Throughout its

implementation, evaluation of this strategy has been largely limited to a few
quantitative indicators such as numbers of trainees - with very little connection
between the evaluation findings and accomplishment of the vision. Additionally, these
indicators have been by and large developed by policymakers and industry interest
groups. There is an unspoken assumption that such indicators effectively represent the
value of Industry Training to all stakeholders concerned.

A few words must be said about the timing of this research. The actual research began
in 2007 and ended in 2010. During that period, two critical events took place the
change from a Labour-led government to a National-led government and the global
economic recession, which saw New Zealand going from having the lowest
unemployment rate internationally to experiencing job losses and higher levels of
unemployment. During this three-year period, there were renewed debates around the
role not only of Industry Training, but of skills in general. This is exemplified in the
discussions surrounding the attempts to develop a Unified Skills Strategy, the focus
on the role of workplaces in this process, and the current interest in low completion
rates for Industry Training and the wider tertiary education programmes (New
Zealand Skills Strategy Discussion Paper, 2008; Ryan, 2007; Tertiary Education
Strategy 2010-15; 2010). At the heart of these debates lie three fundamental
questions: what is the value of Industry Training, how is that value realised, and how
is that value assessed.

This research seeks to shed light on the answers to these questions. At one level, the
contribution of this research is practical and pragmatic. It is hoped that providing
further illumination on these issues will assist practitioners and policymakers in
improving the implementation of Industry Training and skills policies in general.

This research however is also comparative in nature, and is seeking to further enrich
the debate by examining value from multiple stakeholder perspectives. The research
assumes that different stakeholders may value Industry Training differently, and may
view the process of value creation through different lenses. This divergence of views
is probably most pronounced among end users, such as employees and
employers/managers.
2

A qualitative, inclusive approach is used in this research to explore how different

stakeholders evaluate the impact of the Industry Training Strategy and how value is
created for each from strategy engagement. This research is unique in that it seeks to
take a multiple stakeholder perspective to the evaluation of Industry Training,
whereas previous evaluative research has either ignored these perspectives, or has
been limited to only comparing a small range of stakeholders perspectives.

Another unique aspect of this research is its analytical framework, which has been
derived from programme theories on evaluation from the literature. This then provides
another layer of comparative analysis, which seeks to examine the data through the
lens of these programme theories. The result of this research is an expanded theory of
VET policy evaluation and VET effectiveness, from a multiple stakeholder
perspective. The academic contribution of this research will be to VET policy
evaluation literature, with applications to the HRD literature, Critical HRD literature
and the wider policy analysis field.

The following chapter covers the review of the relevant literature, which seeks to
establish the specific knowledge gaps that this research is seeking to address. This
provides the rationale for the research and informs the analytical framework
employed. Chapter 3 is a continuation of the review of the literature which examines
the New Zealand Industry Training context. This provides a historical perspective of
Industry Training, its genesis and an analysis of its evaluation. Chapter 4 describes the
methodology used for this research: the research paradigm used, the research
questions, the methods of analysis, data sources, data collection methods, ethical
considerations and research limitations. Chapters 5 and 6 capture the research findings
against the various research questions. In the final chapter the research findings are
discussed, with the research conclusions and recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

New Zealand is not unique in its pursuit of VET initiatives with the expectation of
attaining an economy characterised by highly skilled, high wage jobs and socioeconomic prosperity. Its experience mirrors international developments in the area of
VET policy, particularly within the OECD. It is therefore important to examine the
literature on the various (but reinforcing) schools of thought that have influenced
countries along similar paths. Drawing mainly on literature from the United Kingdom,
Europe, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, I will first discuss the concept
of globalisation, and attendant ideas about changes in the world economy and changes
in the nature of work. Next, the logic underpinning these attendant ideas will be
explored, particularly in terms of assumptions about the definition and benefits of
VET, and the challenges these pose. The roles of various theories including human
capital, labour economics, employability theory and HRD theories will be examined
to unearth and critique their influences on the ascendancy of VET policies in macroeconomic development and the benefits and beneficiaries of VET investment at the
societal, organisational and individual levels. The literature on how VET investment
is expected to create beneficial outcomes is next explored, with emphasis on
pedagogical issues relating to VET, and the roles of VET stakeholders and varieties of
institutional arrangements in this process, as manifested in differences in VET policy
solutions that have emerged. The challenges of evaluation of VET policies are then
critiqued, drawing on VET evaluation analyses, policy and HRD evaluation literature.
This chapter ends with a synthesis of the literature, proposing that there are two
underpinning and competing theories or logic models that define how VET
investment creates outcomes for stakeholders. These two models propose different
approaches to how VET investment is or ought to be evaluated.

Globalisation, the New Economy and the Nature of Work

The prominence of VET and skills more generally in the policy arena stems from the
rise of dominant perceptions about globalisation and its attendant changes in world
trade, competition, information and communication technology, the production of
goods and services, and ultimately in the way people work. All these factors together
have given rise to what has been dubbed the new economy. This new economy is a
4

direct symptom or consequence of globalisation, which can be defined from an

economic perspective as the growing integration and inter-connection of markets,
market competition, investment, production networks and strategic alliances
(Strugeon, 2000, pp. 4-5). Prior to the emergence of the new economy, developed
countries were characterised as having industrialised economies, whose hallmark was
Fordist production methods and the bureaucratic organisation of work, where work
was distilled into discrete tasks, each requiring limited skills (Briggs & Katay, 2000;
Gilbert, 2005). Within the industrial economy, manufacturing sectors were the major
employers of labour, providing high income levels for low skilled and mainly
permanent manufacturing jobs.

Although it can be argued that the process of globalisation began centuries ago, since
the Second World War, the world has witnessed, and continues to witness, an
accelerated pace of change in information and communication technologies,
technology generally and trade liberalisation. Other nations, particularly from Asia,
began to provide competition to developed Western nations; they could provide
similar and sometimes better products more cheaply (Buchanan et al, 2000). With
trade liberalisation and greater mobility of capital, low skill production plants could
be set up in these countries, where labour costs were cheaper than in developed
nations. The recommended policy response of developed countries to these challenges
was to pursue initiatives which encouraged constant innovation to improve their
ability to produce high quality products and services. (Aldcroft, 1992, Boshier, 1980;
Crocombe et al, 1991; Flude & Siemenski, 1999; Harbison, 1973; Lange et al, 2000;
Tight, 2002). The underlying policy assumption or programme theory is that these
initiatives would result in the continued economic survival and competitiveness of
developed countries. This would also result in a fundamental shift in the labour
market to the creation of a greater number of jobs which would require higher levels
of skills and thus command higher wages the creation of the high-skill, high-wage
vision or the knowledge society (S. Porter, 2006).

Advances in technology and particularly in information and communication

technologies have led to a decline in heavy manufacturing jobs, and a major change in
the nature of work. Work is now predominantly characterised as less labour-intensive,
white-collar, professional jobs in the service sector (Naswall et al., 2008). These
5

service sector jobs differ from traditional manufacturing jobs in that job tasks are less
discrete, and employees now have more control and self-direction over work
outcomes, the outcome being more knowledge intensive work. The requirement for
organisations to constantly improve services and products in order to remain
competitive necessitated a more highly skilled and flexible workforce in order to
adapt to these continuous changes (Rudman, 2000).

Any discussion about the ascendancy of skills in the policy sphere would be
incomplete without discussion of the changes that took place in labour relations in
many developed countries. Increased liberalisation and market competition
fundamentally altered the perception of the labour market. Faced with increased
competition, businesses needed to become more flexible in order to manage their
staffing levels and costs. In many developed countries, particularly the USA, Britain,
Australia and New Zealand, legislation was enacted to bring an end to multi-employer
bargaining, and thus began a dramatic decline in union membership and union
density. This also brought about a dramatic change in the psychological contract
between employers and employees. In an industrialised economy dominated by mass
produced manufacturing goods operating in a relatively stable world economy, the
psychological contract was characterised by lifelong employment in exchange for
employee loyalty (Hodkinson & Bloomer, 2002). In the new economy of openness of
trade, increased competition, and world economic instability, lifelong employment
was no longer a guarantee. The decline in manufacturing in developed countries, and
the subsequent increases in unemployment bolstered the need for a change in the
nature of the employment relationship (Rudman, 2000). The dominant theory
characterising the new psychological contract was the employability theory. The
central tenet of the employability theory is that workers survival in the new economy
depended on them increasing and adapting their skill levels, so that they would always
be able to find employment and avoid social exclusion (Devins & Johnson, 2003;
Rainbird, 2002; Tight, 2002). This became part of the motivating force behind public
policy in many developed countries for expanding government skill development
initiatives and education in general.

A major proponent of the philosophy of the new economy has been Robert Reich,
former Labour Secretary in the United States, who argued that improved performance
6

in VET and higher education generally was the new source of competitive advantage
(Reich, 1992). He theorised that national corporations would give way to multinational corporations, and that the fastest growing occupational group would be that
of symbolic analysts (also called knowledge workers by other writers), who would
have the ability to create value through exploitation of knowledge and skills.
According to Reich, the best policy response in this context was to expand VET, and
to attract and retain symbolic analysts to the economy. Piore and Sabel (1984) in their
work, The Second Industrial Divide, examined the decline of manufacturing in the
United States. They concluded that, in light of the increased competition developed
nations faced from developing countries in the area of mass produced goods, the only
way for developed countries to maintain high wage economies and competitiveness
was through continuous innovation, which required a highly skilled workforce as a
major input (Briggs & Katay, 2000).

In the UK, the National Institute of Economic Studies compared the performance of
matched cases of British and German firms in basic metalworking products, kitchen
furniture, womens outer wear and hotel sectors, and examined the relationship
between VET performance and firm performance (Daly et al, 1985; Prais, 1989). The
conclusion drawn in all the cases was that German firms consistently outperformed
their British counterparts, and the source of Britains underperformance was the
weaknesses in its skill development strategies. This provided further evidence to
support calls for an increase in skill investment through the improvement and
expansion in VET as well as higher education.

In summary, the increasing competition in trade, led to labour market liberalisation,

which has manifested itself in more flexible work arrangements such as workers
changing jobs more frequently and being generally more mobile, and the growth of
more flexible work arrangements such as the contract work, temporary work and
contingent workforces (Naswall et al., 2008). Hence, skills and education is seen as
the new guarantee of employment security and the path to increasing competitiveness,
not only in the labour market, but also among organisations and nations, as higher
skilled workers would be able to produce high end goods and services that are in
greater demand globally.

There are a number of assumptions that underpin the arguments as outlined above,
that need to be analysed in turn. The first concerns the precise nature of the skills and
education investment that is required to create this outcome of socio-economic growth
for societies and its workers. The second relates to how these outcomes are created,
and the assumptions about the roles of different stakeholders engaged in the process.
The third relates to how these outcomes are evaluated.

The nature of skills and education investment

The merit of the logic that the acquisition of skills and education is highly beneficial
to workers and societies is supported by a great deal of socio-economic data. In most
societies, those who are more highly skilled and educated experience lower levels of
unemployment, higher wages and better health outcomes, to name a few beneficial
outcomes (Dyson & Keating, 2005; Harbison, 1973). However, the VET policy
rhetoric refers to the benefits of skills and education in very generalised terms, often
lumping a variety of skills initiatives with other forms of higher education such as
diploma and degree programmes. Further, there is often no attempt made to identify
differing types of VET initiatives in terms of goals, content, design, quality or
quantity. Yet, it is assumed that all types of VET, irrespective of differing
characteristics, lead to highly skilled workforces earning increased wages.

The use of VET as an all encompassing term to cover all aspects of post-secondary
training and learning, poses a challenge for policy evaluation purposes, as the
distinction is not made between different types of post-secondary training provisions,
and their distinct purposes. Grubb and Ryan (2000) rightly argue that distinguishing
among the different types of VET provisions is critical to effective VET policy
evaluation. To this end, they offer a useful typology of VET provisions that is
outlined below:

Pre-employment VET that is targeted at preparing secondary school leavers

for entry into the labour market

Upgrade training that provides learning opportunities for the employed for job
advancement and other purposes

Retraining for displaced workers to assist them in finding alternative

employment

Remedial VET which provides learning opportunities to individuals who have

been marginalised in the mainstream education sector and labour force (Grubb
& Ryan, 2000, p. 10).

Grubb and Ryan (2000) further argue that the different types of VET provisions have
differing goals and target different segments of the labour force. Therefore, there is a
need to make those distinctions clear in the policy dialogue, and identify the
implications for policy evaluation. For example, using the employment rate of
trainees to assess upgrade training can lead to exaggerated conclusions of successful
programme performance, as this type of VET provision targets the employed. Thus
VET policy dialogue would benefit from greater specificity in programme and goal
definition to improve evaluation in the field.

In the literature, there is a proliferation of terms covered by evaluation studies on

skills for example, human capital, formal and informal training and learning. All these
terms have varied and ever-changing meanings, and are not easily defined. Firstly, the
meaning of skill, particularly within the policy dialogue of the new economy, is
changing. It has moved from describing the ability to perform discrete tasks to
meaning cognitive abilities and personal attributes, such as the ability to work in
teams and analytical skills (Fenwick & Hall, 2006; Payne, 2004). This change from a
more technical perspective of skill, to embracing cognition and personal attributes has
its genesis in the altered occupational structures created by the new economy. With
the fall in manufacturing, the service industry is now the fastest growing segment of
the economies of all developed countries, and with it has come the growth of what is
dubbed service work (Keep & Payne, 2004). Service work is by no means a
homogenous employment categorisation; however, service work is characterised by
increased interface with customers and increased use of creativity and work teams,
making the use of cognitive abilities and personal attributes more critical to job
performance. Stasz et al in examining the outcomes of VET policy in the UK context
offer an interesting typology of skills outcomes: academic skills, social skills, and
generic skills (Stasz et al, 2004). Warhurst and Nickson have further expanded on this
concept, to include what they call aesthetic labour, which is especially evident in the
9

retail and hospitality industries, where service work places emphasis on factors such
as image, appearance and dress codes (Warhurst & Nickson, 2007). This expanding
definition of skills is a highly contested issue in the literature for several reasons. For
some, this expansive definition of skills has led to confusion, and to skills becoming a
catch all phrase, meaning everything and nothing (Keep & Payne, 2004).
Additionally, there is the question of whether these cognitive and personal skills can
be developed adequately using formal skill development interventions, such as VET
programmes. Evidence from the UK reveals that national vocational qualifications in
service work tend to be of lower quality and of lower value and status. There is
however a counter argument that the downplaying of these kinds of service skills
represents a gendered view of skills, in that these skills and the jobs that utilise them
are mainly occupied by women, often in exchange for low pay and poor working
conditions. It is further argued that these skills and their attendant qualifications are
viewed as low status because work dominated by women is undervalued in society
(Korczynski, 2005).

Notwithstanding the debate about the value, or lack thereof, of the expanded meaning
of skill, this expansion presents an evaluation dilemma. This dilemma is centred on
several unknowns. The first is what exactly is meant by skills; given the changing
definition of skills, new skills, such as social skills (example being customer service
skills) are not readily observable or described, thus evaluation of such skills is
challenging. A further question is how are skills, given their variety, best developed.
Payne, for example, postulates that many of these new skills are best developed
within the work context (a point to be discussed later in this chapter); however, in the
context of the UK voluntarist VET system, the responsibility for the development of
these skills has shifted to educational institutions (Payne, 2004). As pointed out by
Keep, there is a need to acknowledge that VET policy is possibly better geared at
developing technical skills rather than service skills (Keep, 2007). Within competency
based national qualifications systems (which are discussed later in this chapter),
qualifications are used as a proxy for skills. However the efficacy of this proxy has
been questioned, particularly by proponents of signalling theory (Bassanini et al.,
2005). Such proponents argue that skills are properly acquired through experience on
the job, and qualifications are not indicators of skill level. Rather, qualifications serve
as a signal to employers on the abilities (usually of the more cognitive nature) of
10

prospective workers; those with qualifications are considered more able, and possibly
have the capacity to learn the necessary skills on the job, and those without are less
capable (Correa, 2004). Moreover, the use of qualifications as a proxy for skills can
ignore quality concerns, such as whether the relevant skills were taught, and more
importantly, whether the trainees actually learn, and use what they have learnt, as this
is what then actually translates into performance (Rainbird et al., 2004).

The other problematic terms in the literature are formal and informal training and
learning. Kitching makes a useful distinction between training and learning, the
former being what is done to the employee, and the latter being what the employee
actually does (Kitching, 2007). Thus training refers to attempts to equip employees
with certain skills and knowledge, whether on a formal or informal basis, and learning
is an expected outcome of training, but not necessarily a given. Evans and Rainbird
make a different distinction between training and learning with training being
business focused, while learning addresses a wider range of stakeholders needs (K.
Evans & Rainbird, 2002). This broader appreciation for meeting a range of
stakeholders need has led to a shift in the policy dialogue to embrace learning, and
notions of lifelong learning and the learning society (Fuller et al., 2003).

Human capital suffers from the same problem definition issues as skills. Many
definitions with different emphases have been put forward (Kulvisaechana, 2005).
One of the most comprehensive ones has been put forward by the OECD, the
knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes embodied in individuals that facilitate
the creation of personal, social and economic well-being (OECD cited by Le at al.,
2005, p. 4). As seen from the definition, human capital has different aspects; the
question then arises as to how these elements of human capital are developed, and
which aspects are critical, and critical for what economic development, social
development? Many commentators have noted that different proxies have been used
for human capital, and this has been cited as the source of the lack of empirical
consensus on the contribution of human capital to economic development (David &
Lopez, 2001; Le et al., 2005). Le et al have presented a useful summary and critical
analysis of the types of proxies that have been used for human capital: the cost-based,
income-based and education-based measures.

11

The cost-based measure of human capital is one of the earliest measures and possibly
least used today. The measure involves the use of child rearing costs, and human
capital investment as a proxy for human capital stocks. This measure has been subject
to a number of criticisms, some of which are the inability to distinguish between
human capital investment and consumption costs, the effect of depreciation rate on
cost based measures, and the failure of the measure to look at the quality of the output
(Le et al., 2005, pp. 4-5). The income-based measure of human capital is very
popular, and looks at individual as well as national income streams as a proxy for
individual and national productivity. Many policy documents on human capital
initiatives use the higher earning power of university graduates and graduates of
vocational education and training programmes, to justify policy intervention, and
government funding for such policies. For example, in the United States in 2004, 83%
of adults between the ages 25 to 64 whose highest level of educational attainment was
at the lower secondary level earned at or below the US median income. This
compares with the same age group who attained a minimum of a university degree, of
which 69% earned above the US median income (Miller et al, 2007). Another
common statistic often used in conjunction with income earnings is the lower
unemployment rates of persons with higher levels of educational attainment. So for
example in the United States in 2004, 83% of persons who completed higher
education were employed, compared with 57% of persons whose highest level of
educational attainment was lower secondary education or below (Miller et al., 2007).
The use of income and employment rate as a proxy has the advantage of readily
available data that can be obtained through surveys. However, the measure is not
without its disadvantages, one being that it assumes that wages equal productivity,
when in fact there could be other structural factors that account for income levels,
such as strength of union bargaining power, or the state of the economy or particular
industry in which firms operate (Le et al., 2005).

The education-based measure of human capital involves the use of education outputs
as proxies for human capital stock. The main proxies used in this category are literacy
rates, enrolment rates, years of schooling, and level of educational attainment or
qualifications (Le et al., 2005). The use of literacy rates has been criticised for giving
insufficient attention to higher level skills, and for not being a particularly useful
analytical tool within the context of developed countries, which tend to have higher
12

literacy rates. Additionally, it has been difficult to find a consistent measure for
literacy, although this gap has been addressed by the introduction of the International
Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) (Johnston, 2004; Le et al., 2005). The use of enrolment
rates and years of schooling also have their challenges, in that it does not account for
quality of output and can be distorted by dropouts and repetitions. The use of
qualifications as a proxy for human capital has also been challenged by numerous
commentators (Correa, 2004; Nordman et al., 2006; Rainbird et al., 2004). Also it is
debated whether years of schooling and qualifications are actual indicators of
productive capability, or whether it is merely used as a signalling device to sort job
candidates (Correa, 2004; Le et al., 2005; Stroombergen, 2002).

What is clear is that all measures of human capital have shortcomings in terms of their
use in evaluation (Hanusek & Wobmann, 2007; Johnston, 2004; Le et al., 2005).
Although the type of proxy for human capital differs among studies, what is common
is the pre-eminence of econometric quantitative analyses, all based on certain
assumptions about how specific factors operate in the economy. Such econometric
models must take into account certain variables, but usually to the necessary omission
of others, and there has been the challenge of which factors should be taken into
consideration in the various models. Another challenge with these econometric
models is that they tend to reveal relationships among variables, but they are usually
unable to prove causality between factors, or explain how variables actually work
together. Econometric models are also plagued by problems of getting appropriate
data, and especially assuring the integrity of data. In particular, cross country analyses
can be problematic as variables and data are neither consistently defined nor captured
across time and countries; some common examples are the measurement of
unemployment, and the definition of youth. Notwithstanding these deficiencies,
econometric analyses are constantly improving, and are useful for macro level
analyses. However, they inevitably do not tell us how things actually operate, which is
the heart of policy analysis and evaluation. Particularly as it relates to VET policy,
quantitative analyses do not offer much insight on the relationship between incidence
and investment in skills and higher levels of productivity. Moreover, the empirical
evidence to support one of the central tenets of human capital theory that is the link
between human capital and economic growth, or human capital and firm performance
is inconclusive (Blundell et al, 1999; Christopoulos, 2007). Indeed Wolf et al point
13

to UK research in 1990s where for sectors that had the greatest growth, shortfalls in
training and skill development seem to have been insignificant factors in explaining
either decline or revival (Wolf et al., 2006, p. 556). They further cite evidence that
certified training did not lead to increased earnings in the UK context; in fact the
evidence pointed to an association between uncertified employer-provided training
and higher earnings (Wolf et al., 2006, p. 557).

In summary, the logic that skills and education investment lead to socio-economic
development goals such as high wage, high skills jobs and increased productivity
requires much qualification. While the logic may not be totally falsified, there is a
need to identify the distinctions among different measures being employed, different
skills and VET offerings, including their limitations and peculiarities. Depending on
the nature of the indicator being used and the type of VET initiatives being examined,
different impacts may be experienced by different labour markets, industries and
workers.

What are the outcomes expected and how are these created?

An examination of the relevant literature reveals that, with the exception of the work
done by Grubb and Ryan (1999), VET policy literature is often lacks critical analysis
of the variety of VET outcomes, the differences in VET offerings and organisation,
and the roles the differing VET stakeholders play or may not play in the process of
creation of VET outcomes. This section examines firstly the impact of economic
theories which have significantly influenced the formulation of VET policies, and the
assumptions made about the value creation process of VET, the role of various
stakeholders and the gaps in the theories. This section will also examine the literature
on the variations in VET models across differing governments, to analyse the roles of
stakeholders and the assumptions of these models. HRD theory is also examined, not
because the link to VET policies is explicit, but to identify the similarities and
differences between these theories, and how they may inform the VET value creation
process, and the roles of stakeholders in the process. The section ends with the
examination of pedagogical issues related to learning in workplaces, again from the
perspective of examining the linkages to VET policy.

14

The role of economic theories

A number of theories, mainly from the field of economics, have underpinned this
programme theory of economic growth through skills development. Mournier
succinctly summarised the three mutually reinforcing ideologies behind this thinking
(Mournier, 2001):

Neoclassical, endogenous growth, and factors proportion theories where the

general consensus is that increasing levels of income and economic growth are
dependent on improvement in skills levels in an economy impacted by
globalisation, increasing levels of competition and rapid changes in
technology.
Schumpeterian and Neo-Schumpeterian theories which argue competitive
power and corporate results increase according to their innovative capabilities
and these in turn are functions of the level of skills of their workforce; and
Neoclassical theory of income distribution and human capital theories which
assert that the more highly educated have higher income levels and lower
levels of unemployment, as incomes are related to labour productivity
which in turn is related to education and skills levels (Mournier, 2001, p. 1).

It is perhaps human capital theory which has most captured the imagination of
policymakers, particularly in New Zealand. One need only look at a list of reports
published by the New Zealand Treasury and other government departments to
understand the theorys impact; they include titles such as Knowledge, Capabilites
and Human Capital Formation in Economic Growth (David & Lopez, 2001; Human
Capital and the inclusive economy: Treasury Working Paper 01/16 2001;
Stroombergen, 2002). Gary Becker has been credited for being the economist who
contributed most to the development and popularisation of human capital theory. Of
particular interest have been his ideas related to on-the-job training as he argued that
it clearly illustrates the effect of human capital on earnings, employment, and other
economic variables (Becker, 1962, p. 2). In a nutshell, Becker argues that firms
would not be willing to pay for general training, as the benefits from this will accrue
mostly to the worker, who can then utilise the skills and knowledge gained from

15

general training to seek other jobs elsewhere. The exception would be if workers were
willing to contribute to the cost of general training, by for example, accepting reduced
wages. On the other hand, firms would be willing to invest in specific training related
to the unique characteristics of that firm, as it is the firm that reaps most of the
benefits of specific training, and due to its non-portability, workers would not
rationally invest in specific training themselves. Becker also argued that the income
differentials could be explained by the differing levels of investment in human capital
among individuals, and that the more able tend to invest more than others (Becker,
1962, p. 48).
Beckers theory has been critiqued particularly for referring to a context of a perfect
labour market, which does not exist. In the perfect labour market, as put forward by
Becker, there is virtually no need for government intervention in the provision of
certain skills, as these would be provided through the functioning of the labour
market. His critics have cited a number of market failures and imperfections in the
labour market. Examples cited in the literature include imperfect labour market
information, inadequate financing available to workers to facilitate their investment in
their skills development, inequitable access to education and training for
disadvantaged groups (Acemoglu, 1997, 2003; Bassanini et al., 2005).

These economic theories taken together make certain assumptions about the role and
responsibilities of the variety of stakeholders in the value creation process. One set of
stakeholders are employees, who have an individual responsibility for their own
development and for investing in general training, which is not defined. This fits
neatly with the employability theory. However, how this investment in loosely
defined general training translates into higher earnings and employability is not
explained by these theories. Specifics about the nature of this investment, details on
differences among sectors in the economy, and labour market differences do not
feature in the arguments, thus making the logic a weak one. Another critical
stakeholder identified in these theories is employers, whose motivation is to provide
specific training, which will be beneficial in terms of improved organisational
performance. Again, there is no distinction made as to the nature of specific training;
its interaction with workers general training is not accounted for. Finally, how
specific training creates organisational performance is not specified; rather it is
16

assumed. The third stakeholder is the state. Arguments in relation to the role of the
state recognise a greater degree of complexity in terms of acknowledging differences
among workers, particularly in terms of differences in access to the means to invest in
their development. This requires the state to provide access to correct such inequities
through skills initiatives. However, initiatives targeted at improving labour market
outcomes, and addressing inequity often differ in quality and form, when compared to
other types of skills initiatives (Grubb & Ryan, 1999). Yet, it is argued that all types
of state interventions in skills are expected to translate in the accomplishment of
equity outcomes as well as socio-economic growth for workers and states.

According to Mournier, these theories together explain the programme theory on

skills as conceived by policymakers workers invest in education in their quest for
higher incomes; they then provide firms with more skilled labour, which then
positively impacts firms productivity, the outcome of which is increased national
economic growth, ending in higher per capita income (Mournier, 2001). In principle,
Beckers critics support his theory of skills being the path to socio-economic
development. However they believe that the market failures outlined provide a
rationale for government intervention in the area of skill development, in order to
have optimal levels of skills investment to support socio-economic development.

What is noteworthy in examining this debate is how it has been shaped by influential
policymakers and academics (mainly from the field of economics) (Acemoglu, 2003;
Becker, 1962; Daly et al., 1985; Dunning, 1992; Harbison, 1973). Even more striking
is how the viewpoint of a powerful few came to be translated virtually wholesale into
public policy on skills, without much challenge. Of further interest is the assertion in
the skills policy rhetoric that skills would not only deliver the high wage, high skill
vision, but that it would do so for all.

17

Differences in Institutional Arrangements

Although governments in developed countries have been captivated with increasing
their nations human capital, there is significant divergence in models on how best to
achieve the high-wage, high-skill vision. Table 2.1 below provides a typology of skill
provision in VET across a number of countries.

Table 2.1: Dominant forms of Skills provision across different countries:

Initial VET and Further VET
Direct State

Corporatist

Local

Firm Institutional

Free Markets

Networks

Networks

Companies

France

Germany

Italy

(France)

(UK)

Italy

(Japan)

(Japan)

(Japan)

USA

Sweden

(Sweden)

Initial VET

(Sweden)

UK

(UK)
(USA)

Further VET
(France)
Sweden

(Sweden)

Italy

France

(Germany)

(Japan)

Germany

Italy

Japan

UK

Sweden

USA

UK
USA
Note: Country names in parentheses indicate that this is a minor model within the
country in question. Source Crouch et al. 1999; p. 10.

Crouch et al (1999) have provided a useful taxonomy for analysing these models,
which I will adopt as a part of my analysis of the VET literature. Essentially, the bases
of variation among the models are the institutional frameworks underpinning the
employment relations climate of the specific country (and sometimes specific
industry), and the programme theory on the role of government in the VET sector.

18

At one end of the spectrum, VET is provided directly by the government. Human
capital theory has been used to explain and rationalise such direct involvement. The
premise is that there is imperfect competition in the marketplace, such as imperfect
information on the part of workers, and underinvestment and suboptimal levels of
training. This results in market failure, warranting government intervention to fill the
gap (Briggs & Katay, 2000). Critical to this thinking is the notion of VET as a social
good, that the government has an obligation to secure. The notion of whether VET
constitutes a social or individual good has been much debated, and where
commentators and policymakers sit in the debate affects their programme theory of
how VET policy ought to be implemented, and how it ought to be funded.

A major criticism of direct state intervention is that successful VET policy ought to
deliver training and education that is aligned to the needs of industry, and the state is
not in the best position to understand those needs, therefore state-led VET systems
have the tendency to be unresponsive to industry needs, leading to lower training
numbers as the VET loses validity among workers and employers alike. This was one
of the main arguments put forward in the UK and Australia. This resulted in a counter
policy response in the form of the free market VET model (Briggs & Katay, 2000).

The free market model has to be understood within the context of the wider public
sector reform agenda of these countries. One programme theory underpinning these
reforms is that the market and market type mechanisms were a more efficient and
effective way of delivering public services. This philosophy was extended to the VET
sector, and led to the introduction of industry-led models, where the responsibility for
VET design and to varying extent, VET funding, was subject to market forces, and
firms volunteer their participation in VET on the basis of their needs (Chappell et al.,
2002; Flude & Siemenski, 1999; Hayward & James, 2004; Junor, 1992).

However, it should be noted that even among the countries that pursue the free market
model as the dominant path to providing VET, there are variations. One such which
I propose as a major adaptation to the Crouch et al model - is the addition of the
market-led competency model, which has been pursued (with variations) in the UK,
New Zealand and Australia (Ashton, 2004). The competency based model for VET
has its genesis in the broader quality movement in education, and even broader theory
19

of the new economy. In this model, it is assumed that skills can be defined as discrete
competencies or tasks that can be classified into documented unit standards. This
model is underpinned by the development of a National Qualifications Framework to
which VET qualifications are attached and defined by unit standards at different
levels. This National Qualifications Framework is expected to provide a basis through
which both employers and employees in the labour market can identify skills to be
utilised both as a sign of employability and signal of productive potential. The states
role in this model is to provide this framework, and to stimulate VET engagement
through the provision of funding subsidies to intermediate institutions such as training
providers and organisations, and in some jurisdictions, to employers. Another feature
of the competency-based model is the flexibility of delivery methods that can be
employed. The workplace under this model is viewed as a legitimate site of learning,
in addition to traditional institution-based training. This then gave rise the
employment of assessors within the workplace to assess learning. The theory of the
new economy as explained earlier, espouses the achievement of high skill levels as
the path to higher wages, productivity and economic growth. Simultaneously, in
developed countries, there has been growing concern about the quality of educational
output vis--vis competitor nations, particularly in the USA and the UK. The marketled competency model, where it was applied, (UK, New Zealand and Australia) was
attractive to policymakers on three counts. Firstly, it sought to improve the quality of
VET by ensuring (at least in theory) that VET met specified, documented standards,
standards that would and should be developed across various sectors of the economy
(Bailey & Merritt, 1995). Secondly, adequate signals would then be sent to employers
on the skill levels of workers, thus signalling adequacy of the supply of skills (Bailey
& Merrit, 1995). Thirdly, it fostered greater ease of measurement of outcomes, in that
outcomes could easily be measured in terms of unit standards completed. This again
dovetailed with the wider public sector reform agenda, and its focus on performance
indicators as a means of evaluating the level and quality of public service delivery
(Bailey & Merrit, 1995; Field, 1991).

This market-led competency model has faced many criticisms. First, it defines the
problem as being one of supply of skills, and many commentators have noted that
greater emphasis is needed on the demand side of equation, and on public policy
encouraging firms to adopt skills-intensive competitive strategies (Finegold &
20

Soskice, 1998; Keep & Mayhew, 1999). Another criticism is that the actual
implementation of the model has undermined the quality of VET. The model,
particularly in the UK context, was designed to accommodate employers needs,
flexibility in delivery of training, the acknowledgement of prior knowledge and onthe-job utilisation of skills through the use of assessors. This, it has been noted, has
led to poor training quality based on loosely defined standards; as a consequence,
VET training has a lower status among workers, and lower levels of uptake.
Dieckhoff, in a comparative study of the UK, German and Danish VET systems, has
also concluded that the free market competency based model has led to poorer labour
market outcomes in the UK both in terms of income level and risk of unemployment
(Dieckhoff, 2008). Research in various Asian countries, such as Taiwan, Singapore
and South Korea has also brought into question the argument of the paucity of state
led VET systems, supporting the premise that state intervention is sometimes required
to foster rapid economic development (Ashton et al, 2002; F. Green et al, 1999).
There is a counter argument to this however. While the model has come in for a great
deal of criticism, as Wolf has pointed out, it should follow that these economies
experience persistently poor economic performance; however the converse has been
the case, and both the USA and UK (as examples of free market models) have
experienced growth in spite of the perceived inferiority of VET performance in the
respective countries (Wolf, 2002, p. 43). The findings reveal that the relationship
between skills and economic performance is complex, and not adequately explained
by the prevailing programme theory.

Another criticism levelled at the competency based model specifically, is whether

such a model can deliver competitive advantage to firms and countries. It has been
argued that the competency based model has at its heart the notion of making
knowledge explicit and therefore transferable. As it is transferable, it is rational then
to assume that it can also be transferred or copied by competitor firms and countries
(Strathdee, 2005). The model also assumes that all skills and knowledge and indeed
all industries training are amenable to standardisation or that it is desirous for all
industries to use such a model, and this is not necessarily the case (Smelt, 1995).

In terms of evaluation of VET, the competency model has been criticised for its
assumption that qualifications are in fact an adequate proxy for skills, a point to which
21

I will return in a later section (Bassanini et al., 2005). It has been argued that rather
than being a proxy for skills, the attainment of unit standards simply leads to more
credentialing (Wolf et al, 2006). Also, given the emphasis on flexibility the very thing
that the unit standards were to signal quality of training has been undermined, as
employers and workers alike have come to question the usefulness of these VET
qualifications (Wolf, 2002).

In between the state-led and free market models, there are a number of models which
vary according to the level of state and market intervention the corporatist model
(found in Germany and Denmark), local firms network model (example Italy) and
institutional companies (example Japan) (See Table 2.1) (Briggs & Katay, 2000;
Crouch et al., 1999). All three of these models have as their hallmarks some degree
of cooperation among the critical stakeholders. In the case of the corporatist model (or
the German dual system), the system of apprenticeship is based on an institutional
framework of cooperation among industry groups, government and firms, that is
bounded by regulation and law. In the case of local firms network model, skill
development is fostered through cooperation and sharing among firms, while in the
institutional companies model, skill development is fostered in the context of an
employment relations climate of high trust and lifelong employment contract between
employers and workers. Although these models are not without their challenges, there
appears to be a high level of consensus among commentators on their efficacy in
delivering higher levels of productivity and competitive advantage for the respective
countries (Ashton et al., 2002; Culpepper, 1999; Dieckhoff, 2008; F. Green et al,
1999; M. Porter, 1998).

There is considerable debate then on how best to design skills policies. One
dimension of this debate is whether the intended foci and outcomes of skills policies
complement or compete against each other. For example, in competency based
models, the programme logic has been to develop certified training across all
industries. There is research however which suggests that focus should be on early
education, cognitive skills and mathematical ability, and not so much on vocational
education and training (Hanushek and Wobmann 2007, Ingram and Neumann 2006,
Wolf, 2002; Acemoglu 2003). It can also be argued that not all industries require

22

government or any other type of organised intervention as industries differ in size and
importance to any economy (Smelt, 1995).

Irrespective of the VET model adopted, as noted earlier, VET policies have tended to
be designed to achieve a multiplicity of outcomes (Hayward & James, 2004; Lloyd,
2003). However, it can be argued that these outcomes, while all important, do not
necessarily lead down the same pathway. Take the outcome of national economic
development and productivity. The jury is still out as to how education/training
contributes to this. As will be argued in greater detail later, other factors are
important, for example capital investment, management style, the state of the
particular industry/economy etc. to bring about this outcome. This makes attribution
and evaluation difficult. This also poses a structural problem as well. If national
economic development and productivity is one of the critical outcomes, who is best
positioned to lead such a policy, is it employers, government? It has been noted that
government and school-led strategies run the risk of being irrelevant. Employer-led
strategies run the risk of ignoring individual and national and industry wide concerns
(Billett & Hayes, 2000).

If one of the aims of VET policy is to accomplish active labour market policy goals to which can be married social justice and inclusion goals, such as addressing youth
unemployment and delinquency, reducing unemployment, and promoting full
employment - the focus is primarily on decreasing unemployment and budgetary
control by reducing the number of citizens on unemployment benefits. It is also about
ensuring that unrepresented groups are active members of the labour market, such as
minorities, women and youth. Many of these kinds of government training initiatives
tend to be second chance education and training programmes, in other words, targeted
at persons who have been unsuccessful in the formal education system. There might
also be a difference in content of such training; emphasis for example might be on
foundation skills. The success of such programmes tends to be evaluated differently,
for example, the number of beneficiaries who have completed training and who are in
long term employment, and, to a lesser extent, income levels after training.

The question is does success on these measures also contribute to other types of
economic measures such as increased productivity? The data seem to indicate yes, but
23

only to a certain extent; such persons do not necessarily increase their income levels
and may still lack the level of literacy and numeracy skills to function in higher
quality jobs (D. Green & Riddell, 2003). Again, the question is what skills are the
target population being equipped with, are these skills which are in demand and
highly rewarded in the labour market? So while politicians have a tendency to
postulate that education and training initiatives will contribute to both these goals, in
reality, they may in fact be distinctly different goals, requiring different types of
interventions. There is also the issue of access; who accesses these opportunities? Are
they members of the target population? This raises the structural issue of how best to
design policy to achieve the requisite outcomes. We come back to the question of who
leads, and the differing models. Employer-led systems do not necessarily lead to
increased access vis-a-vis government-led systems, as employers have no obligation
to provide training, unless their buy-in is obtained.

What is clear is that there is no one model that is suitable to all contexts, and that each
model is mediated by its unique national and organisational cultures and institutional
arrangements. The different VET arrangements assume varied roles for key
stakeholders in the provision of VET and the creation of VET outcomes. The more
state-led models emphasise the role of training institutions in the provision of VET;
however, this model is criticised for minimising the role of employers in influencing
VET quality and relevance, which also decreases the benefit to trainees. The
competency based model also has its challenges in that it assumes equal valuing of
VET qualifications, which is often not the case, particularly because the funding
model often creates perverse incentives for training providers to increase VET
provision without a corresponding increase in VET quality (Wolf, 2011). The
research on the corporatist, local firm and institutional companies models all point to
the role that labour market arrangements and workplace and sector contexts play in
the use of and delivery of VET, and its outcomes, particularly, the role of employers
in valuing and using VET initiatives.

Human Resource Development (HRD) Theories

The rhetoric of the centrality of skills to competitiveness has also filtered down to the
micro-level in firms, as demonstrated by the evolution of HRD theory. It is somewhat
24

strange to entitle this section human resource development theories, as much of the
literature on HRD theory has decried the lack of theoretical underpinnings and
consensus on the definition for the field of HRD (Elliot & Turnbull, 2005;
McGoldrick et al., 2001, p. 348); McLean et al., 2003). With reference to the work of
Walton (1999), McGoldrick et al noted his criticism of the field of human resource
development as being jargon-ridden and meaning-hidden (McGoldrick et al.,
2001, p. 348). Bryson has noted that broad variation in the definition of HRD found in
the literature results from the myriad perspectives of scholars in the field, such as the
human resource management (HRM), professional association, academic, American
or European perspectives (Bryson, 2007). As a result, definitions and the focus of
HRD vary from those which incorporate both training and development (inclusive of
career and management development), to those which view training as separate from
development, to those who include training and development along with
organisational performance issues (Bryson, 2007). Then there are those, such as
McGoldrick et al (2001), who resist the notion of having any one definition for HRD
by offering their own theory of the use of holographic metaphor. They purport that
this philosophical standpoint can provide a contextual basis for the field, both in terms
of research and practice, as it takes into account the multiplicity of lenses through
which HRD can be seen. While this concept carries an all-embracing allure, it does
not resolve the issue of definition, which is important to the practical considerations
of HRD research, which by necessity must start with defining the boundaries of the
phenomenon being researched.

I posit however that the field of HRD is not without theory. If one holds to the
definition of a theory as being a concept of how the world works, then HRD literature
and practice is underpinned by a number of theories, although they may not always be
clearly articulated as such (Frey et al, 1991). Additionally, HRD is an applied field,
and as such, tends to be concerned with application and practice, and not as much
with developing empirically tested theories. The work of Fleetwood and Hesketh
(2007) on the under-theorisation of the Human Resource Management-Performance
(HRM-P) link is insightful to this notation. Although their focus is on HRM, their
discussion implies a definition of HRM that is inclusive of HRD. They point to the
proliferation of theories in the field, highlighting the fact that the field is not without
theory; a total of forty-nine were cited (Fleetwood & Hesketh, 2006, 2007). Despite
25

this multiplicity, two broad categories of theories in the field can be identified, simply
termed hard and soft HRM (Guest, 1999). The hard theories tend to view
workers as resources to be maximised; examples of these are resource based view of
firm and Strategic HRM. The soft perspective broadly speaking tends to focus on
socio-psychological factors at play within the workplace, and are usually geared at
fostering employee commitment and motivation (Beer et al., 1985; Guest, 1999).
Examples of these kinds of theories are high performance workplace practices, social
exchange theory and stakeholder perspective theory. The underlying commonality
among them all however is that they all seek to explain or at least provide a
prescription or model for understanding the link between HRM and organisational
performance/competitive advantage.

Perhaps this link is best exemplified in what is dubbed the Harvard HRM Territory
map (Beer et al., 1985). The model proposes that the analysis of stakeholder interests,
including shareholders, employees, the state and wider community, along with
situational factors such as workforce characteristics, labour market and business
conditions, the legal and technological environment, ought to translate into HR policy
choices. These policy choices should then centre on employee influences, such as
their skills and motivation, the organisation of human resources, reward and work
systems. These policy choices, when strategically executed will lead to a number of
beneficial outcomes, such as commitment, competence and cost effectiveness, which
result in the long term to individual and societal well-being and organisational
effectiveness (Beer et al., 1985).

This mirrors the programme theory on skills espoused by policymakers on two

counts. First, the assumption about skills in the business literature is similar: they both
claim that investment in training (the focus being mainly on formal training) and other
HR practices translates into competitive advantage gains for firms. Second, this
theory tends to be espoused by particular commentators and academics, usually from
a North American, large firm perspective. Thirdly, this theory has to a very large
extent been unequivocally accepted. This is evidenced by the unprecedented
expansion in HRD activities, both within firms, and as an academic discipline in the
last three decades. For example, Velada et al note that in the USA, more than $50
billion is spent annually on formal training, and that training investment by firms have
26

increased worldwide (Velada et al., 2007). But it is a more complex interplay of

factors that is often not acknowledged adequately in the VET policy literature.
Critical HRD Theory

Over the last ten years, a strand of HRD literature has emerged out of Critical
management studies called Critical HRD theory, which posits that there is a need to
challenge the assumptions of HRD (Fenwick, 2004). It is argued that the view of
skills within HRD (and in VET policy for that matter) has largely been an economic
view. Armstrong points out that there are two competing perspectives that underpin
HR practices and theory the unitarist and the pluralist perspectives (Armstrong,
2008, p. 7). In the unitarist perspective, human resources are viewed as any other
business asset to be developed and deployed for the benefit of the organisation. The
unitarist perspective is economic in its outlook, and the use of quantitative data such
as HR costs is the preferred data used to evaluate HR contribution. The pluralist
perspective on the other hand views employees as valued assets and as progressive
beings, who can add value through their commitment, quality and adaptability. The
preferred evaluation mechanisms from this perspective may also be quantitative in
nature, but seeks to measure non-financial or softer indicators such as employee
engagement and development opportunities for workers (Armstrong, 2007, p. 8).
Commentators like Stasz (2001) and others propose taking a socio-cultural
perspective on skills, and challenging the unitarist assumption that what is good for
the firm is good for the employee (Rainbird & Munro, 2003; Stasz, 2001). The
individual employees perspective is for the most part overlooked in the research, as
there is an overwhelming emphasis on organisational development and meeting
organisational goals, which does not account for individual workers needs, making
the notion of HRD largely capitalist in nature (Antonacopoulou, 1999; Edgar &
Geare, 2005). Guest, for example in his discussion of the distinction between hard and
soft HRM, looks at the view that HRM is a tool to trick employees into being
willingly exploited. He notes the contradiction in the literature between the complaint
that there is not enough HRM and those who fear its successful implementation
(Guest, 1999; p. 487). This contradiction points to one of central tenets of Critical
HRD which views workplaces as contested terrain rather than homogenous entities

27

where the needs of all stakeholders are harmoniously aligned towards one profitable
end (Fenwick, 2004, 2005; Garavan et al., 2000).

One of the assumptions that Critical HRD seeks to challenge is the performance
perspective of HRD that sees HRD as a major vehicle of the new economy
(ODonnell et al, 2006). Underpinned by human capital and management theories, as
human resources (aka human capital) are resources at the disposal of firms that ought
to be developed and maximised for profit. Indeed a much banded about catch phrase
is that the human resources of a firm is its most important resource; it is the new
source of competitive advantage (Noe et al, 2000). For this to happen, human
resources needs to be developed and deployed strategically; this then is the ambit of
HRD professionals and practice. The empirical evidence often used is that top
companies investment in HRD, whether it is in training, education or high
performance work systems, leads to increased profitability and productivity (Pfeffer,
1998). Another underlying theory of HRD is the importance of evaluating HRD
performance. As the argument goes, HRD, like every other part of an organisation,
must prove its value, its contribution to the organisation. Indeed, from Kirkpatrick to
Phillips, Kaplan and Norton, and Brinkerhoff, many have devised various methods of
evaluating HRD (Brinkerhoff, 2003, 2006; Dockery, 2001; R. Kaplan & Norton,
1996, 2001; Kirkpatrick, 1998a, 1998b; J. Phillips & Stone, 2002; P. Phillips &
Phillips, 2007; Swanson, 1998). This quest to prove the value of HRD investment has
been a difficult one, however, as it has been fraught with the same challenges faced
by the measurement of human capital investment at the macro level as discussed
earlier. It is difficult to determine causality for HRD impact, or to separate the impact
of HRD interventions from other organisational and other factors; the measures often
used are quantitative and often fail to provide any real information on impact, and the
challenges go on. However, my purpose here is not to assess these methods, but to put
forward what I see as some common issues that are of relevance to my research.

First, there is a heavy emphasis on marketing of HRD; the theory is that unless HRD
professionals can prove the valuable contribution of HRD to the firm, HRD runs the
risk of budget cuts and HRD practitioners risk job loss. An example of this is the
number of publications produced by the Australian National Training Authority
geared at promoting the use of HRD measurement among employers (Dockery, 2001;
28

A. Smith, 2001). Indeed, one could take the cynical perspective that evaluation of
HRD at the firm level could possibly be about the perception of value, as opposed to
analysing any real value. This then is the distinction between policymakers and firms;
whereas policymakers appear to agree on the necessity to invest in human capital as
the path to economic growth, employers appear to need convincing; for employers
this is not a given. This has implications therefore for both the implementation and
evaluation of VET. As VET policy is implemented within firms, it cannot be taken as
a given that employers and managers will have the same vested interest as
policymakers. Nor can it be assumed that the value derived by employers from HRD
investment is similar to the value perceived by policymakers.

Another underlying implication of this marketing emphasis of HRD is that employers

and business owners are the main clients of HRD activities (Brinkerhoff, 2006;
Kirkpatrick, 1998a; J. Phillips & Stone, 2002). This has implications for the role of
power in HRD practice. Whereas employers are interested in HRD mainly for the
value or profit that they will derive from their investment, policymakers (at least in
democratic societies) have an interest in balancing power between employers and
workers, and have to walk the tight rope of balancing national needs, sector wide
needs, employers needs and the needs of the workforce. To give an example, one of
the success indicators that is used in some empirical studies on the benefits of VET is
labour mobility whether the acquisition of VET increases workers chances for
getting higher wages and better jobs (World class skills: implementing the Leitch
review of skills in England, 2007). Employers on the other hand have almost
completely opposite interests; they are interested in maximising their training
investment. Indeed, to grant wage increases upon the acquisition of skills is to in fact
diminish their investment. Also, a much cited reason for employers under-investing in
VET is the fear of poaching; in other words, losing their investment (Abbot 1993).

This issue of power can also be extended to examining workplace learning. Although
it has been argued that most learning takes place on the job, and that this is the most
effective place for workers to learn, workplace learning is possibly even more subject
to the above mentioned power struggles, which impact on its quality or existence. As
Hager and others have rightly pointed out, the quality of the work context (for
example management culture, work organisation) affects the extent to which workers
29

learn. Indeed, it can be argued that the employment relationship is not a relationship
of equals; therefore employers and managers can exert a great deal of control over
how workers learn, and who accesses learning (Hager, 2004; Hager & Beckett, 1999;
ODonnell et al., 2006). This is further compounded in the free market VET model,
which is usually accompanied by increasing casualisation and job insecurity, which
create environments that emphasize short term profitability over HRD investment (R.
Hall et al., 2000).

Another way in which the debate has been termed is the learning versus the
performance perspectives of HRD (McGoldrick et al., 2001). According to Elliot and
Turnbull, this debate represents the greatest tension in HRD, that is the struggle to
reconcile the needs of the individual with the needs of the employing organisation, the
tension between autonomy and community (Elliot & Turnbull, 2005, p. 2). Tight has
described HRD as a capitalist concept, reducing people to disposable assets (Tight,
2002, pp. 81-84). This has implications for the type of indicators researchers employ
in their investigations on the impact of HRD activities, especially from a policy
perspective. Indeed, one of the premises underlying human capital theory is that for
employing firms to benefit from training, the financial benefit to the employee has to
be lessened. The question as to who benefits from HRD activities has implications for
any evaluation of government VET initiatives. Initial information seems to indicate
that the notion of the customer of these programmes has evolved over time, from
focusing on employers and the need to get their buy-in at the outset, to a shift of focus
to providing training support to workers through apprenticeships, individual training
plans etc (Harris, 2007). Who the customer is defined as, shapes policy design and
implementation, and ultimately the outcomes and likely impact. The challenge for
policymakers in particular is that national VET policies, especially those geared at
increasing skills and productivity levels, are implemented at the level of firms.
Particularly within the context of market-led VET policies, policymakers have little, if
any control, over organisational environment in which work and learning gets applied
(or not applied for that matter). Given the contextual nature of learning at work, the
challenge for policymakers is how to influence employers to adopt workplace
practices, and cultivate the kind of working environments that foster learning and
worker empowerment (Eraut et al., 2000; Fenwick, 2006). However, that is assuming
that there is agreement among firms, that cultivating and deploying new and higher
30

skill levels are in fact the answer to creating a more productive society. The evidence
however shows that this is not the case, as many firms can choose - and often do to
compete on the basis of low skills inputs; the high performance workplace system still
remains a novelty rather than a norm in organisational practice (Keep & Mayhew,
1999).

The issue of whose interests are served by HRD and VET policy is largely underresearched, as both have been assumed to serve the interests of all parties involved.
The research that is available on employers and employees interests is very limited
but insightful, and points to differences in interests and motives both between them,
and among them and the interests of stakeholders such as policy makers. For
employers, the internal (work organisation and culture) as well as external
(technology, sector, market position, legislation) operational context affects the extent
to which they engage in workplace learning; the more internal and external pressure
experienced, the more likely they are to strategically manage workplace learning (C.
Dunn, 2007; Francis et al, 2003; Kock et al., 2008). Also, employers in low skill
sectors such as retail, food processing and hotels, are more likely not to view skills as
being critical to their profitability (C. Dunn, 2007, Wilson & Hogarth, 2003).
Additionally, employers, particularly smaller employers, have a preference for
specific, technical training, in-house training (Kitching & Blackburn, 2002).The
research on nationally recognised workplace training is even more limited. There is
some insightful research out of Australia however that found that employers were
motivated to engage in formal training for compliance purposes, such as health and
safety; otherwise, qualifications are not as valued except for recruitment purposes for
higher skilled staff (Ridoutt, Dutneall, Hummel & Smith, 2002; Ridoutt, Hummel,
Dutneal & Smith, 2005; Ridoutt, Smith, Hummel & Cheang, 2005).

Even less research has been done on why employees choose to engage in training and
what value they derive from it. The research on employees perspectives tends to be
dominated by the issue of learning transfer, and the factors that facilitate or hinder the
application of learning in the workplace, and cite the importance of factors such as
supportive work environments and supervisors, quality and relevance of training and
employee commitment (Martin et al., 2001; Rainbird & Munroe, 2003; Santos &
Stuart, 2003; Velada et al., 2007). From the few studies I was able to review, the
31

consensus is that workers engage in training for economic as well as non-economic

reasons (C. Dunn, 2007; Learner Perspectives of Industry Training, 2007). For
example, in a study of retail industry trainees in New Zealand, some of the greatest
values derived from engagement in industry training were increased confidence both
as an individual and as worker, and skill recognition; this study also indicated that
economic gains from industry qualifications by way of promotion or increased pay
was not a given; nonetheless, workers still found it valuable (C. Dunn, 2007). Another
study by Edgar and Geare, also in the New Zealand context, revealed that employees
were interested in training to increase their employability, supporting findings from
elsewhere that employees have a preference for generic and visible skills and training
that can be used outside of their current work organisation (Edgar & Geare, 2005;
Katz & Ziderman, 1990; W. Smits, 2007). What this brief research overview
highlights is that there are significant differences in how different stakeholders value
HRD and VET, and this in my view, creates a challenge not only for evaluating its
impact, but also the extent to which such policies can be successful and how policy
success is defined.

The challenges outlined above are best summarised, in my view, by Bolton and
Houlihan in the form of some interesting questions posed by them, pertaining to the
analysis of humanistic HRM practices (Bolton & Houlihan, 2007b). I think that they
are also of relevance to policymakers and in the evaluation of the impact of
government VET policies, and which I will adapt for the purposes of my discussion.
The first is what needs do VET policies seek to meet, and who should define these
needs? Depending on where one sits, (employers, unions/workers, policymaker), one
will get different answers. The second is who gets to avail of them? Here the question
was posed in terms of which employees, and points to the issue of equity of access,
and who determines access to learning. However from a policy perspective there are
additional access issues to contemplate, such as access by minority groups. Another
related issue is which industries should access government funded VET resources. In
the market-led competency model, the thrust has been to establish VET coverage for
all or most industries; it could be argued however that scarce resources are put to
better use by focusing on certain key industries, where the most potential benefits
could accrue to the largest possible client groups. However this can also be viewed as
another form of inequity.
32

The third question is who prevails when it comes to competing interests? This is
where policymakers find themselves performing a balancing act among stakeholders.
This also has implications for impact evaluation and research methodology, a major
challenge being to develop indicators that are equally valued and useful across
stakeholder groups. According to Critical HRD theorists, there is a need to ask whose
interests get served in HRD practice and in HR research, what knowledge counts
(Fenwick, 2004, p. 198; ODonnell et al., 2006; Valentin, 2006). Even if there was
consensus among stakeholders on the value of HRD investment and the value in
evaluating the impact of such investment, there would still be the practical issue of the
development of appropriate metrics to be used, and the infrastructure to collect and
analyse such data to produce usable information.

Pedagogical Issues

Much of the evaluative work on skills and training however, places heavy emphasis
on formal training. There is however a growing appreciation in the literature, and in
the policy dialogue on the role of informal or non-formal learning. Workplace
learning in particular has gained a great deal of prominence, although research in the
area is still somewhat limited (Nordman et al., 2006). Workplace learning theory,
which has its roots in agency and social learning theories among others, takes issue
with the traditional pedagogy of learning, which views formal training and classrooms
as authentic sites of learning (Kitching, 2008b; Rainbird et al., 2004, p. 118). Instead,
these theorists argue that the workplace is the central site where most learning in
relation to work takes place, and that most of this learning cannot be captured by
qualifications (K. Evans & Rainbird, 2002). Workplace learning theory also
recognises the value of tacit knowledge, and the fact that most of this type of
knowledge and its acquisition is unnoticed (Nonaka, 1991; Strathdee, 2005). Hager
however takes issue with the elusiveness of the concept of tacit knowledge however,
as he argues that its vagueness suggests it cannot be developed in an intentional
manner (Hager, 2000, 2004; Hager & Beckett, 1999). This view has led to the
development of strategies to foster guided learning within workplaces (Billett, 2000;
Vaughan et al., 2011). Workplace learning also sees learning as socially constructed
within groups and community, as opposed to residing within individuals (Chappell et
33

al., 2002; R. Edwards & Boreham, 2003; Fuller et al., 2003; Stasz, 2001). The extent
to which the workplace including job design, employment relations, individual
motivations, organisational climate facilitates learning has great significance for the
use of skills and their impact on organisational performance (Ashton, 2004; Bryson et
al, 2006; Rainbird et al., 2004). Given this contextualisation, the idea of learning
being transferable is also challenged by these commentators (Eraut et al., 2000; Eraut
& Hirsh, 2007; Stasz, 2001). This is of particular interest when this is juxtaposed
against the competency based national vocational qualifications systems, which have
portability of skills as one of its central hallmarks, such as the models used in the UK
and New Zealand. This contextualised understanding of workplace learning also has
implications of the study of workplace learning practices within small and medium
sized enterprises (Kitching, 2007). Given the large number and significance of SMEs,
much of the research on training within VET has concluded that SMEs under-invest
in training; however this is usually based on data looking at formal training courses
and other quantitative indicators of training (Hoque & Bacon, 2006). From the
perspective of workplace learning, new research has pointed to the fact much more
learning takes place within SMEs than previously reported (Kitching, 2008b). In fact,
the concept of workplace learning embraces a multiplicity of learning strategies, and
sees the distinction between formal and informal learning as blurred (Eraut et al.,
2000).

If the tenets of workplace learning theories are to be accepted, this has implications
for the evaluation and design of VET policy. At the level of policy design, the
challenge for policymakers is how to design interventions to influence workplace
learning (Eraut & Hirsh, 2007). It also means that for evaluation and research on
skills, the workplace is possibly a more meaningful unit of analysis (Holtom, 2006).
This also implies a reconfiguration of the individual as the unit of analysis for
research on skills. Instead of the emphasis on individual attainment of skills and
qualifications, it is perhaps more meaningful to focus on how different individuals in
the skills arena interact with each other, and their contexts to create or inhibit different
outcomes. This brings to fore the importance of motivations, expectations and power
struggles in implementation of skill policies. This also has implications for research
methodology. Given that workplace learning is not readily discerned, qualitative
research methods, such as the ethnographic approach, have been recommended to
34

understand the complexities of workplace learning (Eraut & Hirsh, 2007; Kitching,
2008b).

How these outcomes are evaluated

Policy Evaluation Theories

It is also critical to examine the body of work known as policy evaluation, as a

foundation for my research for the following reasons. First, the focus of this research
is public VET policy; secondly it will help to inform the research methodology to be
employed in my research (which will be discussed later). Additionally, it is my view
that the evolution and challenges in policy evaluation theories mirrors those related to
human capital development and human resource development, and therefore offers
further insight on gaps in the evaluation of the Industry Training Strategy.

Policy evaluation has its genesis in social science research methodology, and is
considered an applied social science (Fischer, 2007). The application focus of policy
evaluation is perhaps its most distinctive feature, which has influenced theoretical
developments in the field. Its application focus however has led to one of the major
criticisms of the field, which is that it suffers from the underdevelopment of
theoretical underpinnings (Alkin, 2004). This is a criticism that policy evaluation has
in common with HRD theory, though perhaps not to the same extent. According to
King, the field of policy evaluation lacks validated theories of evaluation, as there is
no conceptual consensus. Additionally, being a field of practical focus, the emphasis
has been on practice and on programme theory, as opposed to developing empirically
based evaluation theories (King, 2003). Criticism aside, the application focus of
policy evaluation points to its primary interest, which is the determination of effects
of public policy on society as a whole, and the provision of policy solutions (Behn,
1981).

Policy evaluation has a history similar to that of the social sciences. The first
similarity is the domination of the positivist approach to methodology used in policy
evaluation with an emphasis on quantitative data and the experimental and quasiexperimental methods. Alkin (2004) provides a useful overview and framework for
35

understanding the evolution of policy evaluation theories. This framework, called the
evaluation theory tree, identifies three major branches along which policy evaluation
theories have developed the methods branch, the values branch and the use branch.
The evolution of theories along each of the three branches, has been driven by the
increasing complexity of policy problems and the continuous need for accountability
brought on by public sector reform initiatives in developed countries. In terms of
methods, as with the rest of social sciences, there has been growing awareness of the
limitations of the positivist paradigms. Given the complexities of the post-modern era,
it was increasingly recognised that positivist methods with its emphasis on
quantitative data was not able to provide suitable answers for policy problems. This
kind of data tends to provide a useful baseline, but tends to gives indication of the
average situation. Whereas policymakers usually are concerned with policy matters
that fall outside of the norm or average, baseline data cannot answer the how
questions that so desperately need to be answered in order improve public service
delivery, particularly for social programmes (Nolan & Wong, 2004). Public Sector
reform or the new public management system of governance that has more or less
been adopted across developed countries has brought an increased emphasis on
accountability for outputs and outcomes. This has given rise to greater emphasis and
interest in policy evaluation, as a part of the accountability mechanism of
governments.

Driven by the changing demands, the methods used in policy evaluation have evolved
to embrace interpretive methods of enquiry, so much so that today, policy evaluation
is considered a field typified by mixed methods of enquiry, which are contingent on
the context and politics surrounding the research subject (Christie, 2003; W. Dunn;
2004; Fischer, 2007).

The values branch refers to the role of the evaluator in

assigning value to evaluation findings. This again has its roots in the dissatisfaction
with positivist methods of enquiry, and its underlying assumptions of objective,
value-free truth that can be unearthed through scientific, experimental research
methods. This change in paradigm has been influenced by feminist and post-modern
literature, as well as by social justice debates. However, policy evaluation theories in
the values branch differ on perspectives of the role that the evaluator plays in
assigning value to evaluation findings. Theories range from a unitary perspective,
which relies heavily on the evaluators skills and knowledge to assign value to
36

research findings, and provide policy answers (as advocated by Scriven) to pluralist
perspective, where the evaluator to varying degrees share the task of valuing with
limited or a wide range of stakeholders (Scriven, 1967). At the other end of the
spectrum, the evaluators role is more akin to that of a consultant and facilitator,
whose task is to help stakeholders to assign value for themselves, and to build their
own policy evaluation capacity and improve their operations through learning. The
understanding of evaluator as facilitator/consultant has been heavily influenced by
theories of organisational learning and development.
The values branch of the evaluation tree recognises the influence of the political
process on policy analysis in general, and on policy evaluation in particular. These
theories also recognise that evaluation is not a value-free process, and that evaluators
do in fact place their own values on evaluation findings. Many of these theories have
been influenced by social justice and constructivist paradigm, which advocate for the
inclusion of stakeholders perspectives, either to empower them or to recognise that
stakeholders experience of public policy is socially constructed, and that these
experiences should be integral to the evaluation process (Alkin, 2004; Lennie, 2006).
Included among these theorists are Guba and Lincolns Fourth Generation Evaluation,
Stakes Responsive Evaluation theories and Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition
Framework (Alkin, 2004; Sabatier, 2007).
The development of the use branch of policy evaluation theories has been subjected
to similar influences as the values branch, particularly by theories relating to social
justice and democratization, as well as organisational learning and development
theories. These policy evaluation theories are also referred to as decision-oriented
theories, and focus on using policy evaluation to assist stakeholders in decisionmaking. The development of these theories was also driven by pragmatic concerns
about increasing the use of evaluation findings to inform policy decisions; although
policy evaluation has gained popularity over the past thirty years, in reality, its
findings have not always been popularly received, or valued by key decision makers
(W. Dunn, 2004; Fischer, 2004). Theories in this group vary in terms of the range of
stakeholders who are involved in, and are the focus of the evaluation. At one end,
there are theorists such as Wholey and Cousins, who focus on programme personnel
and the challenges they face in implementing and evaluating policy. At the other is
37

Fettermans empowerment evaluation theory where the focus is on policy programme

recipients, and empowering them to conduct their own evaluations. Common to all the
theories on the use branch is the involvement, participation and some degree of
empowerment of policy programme stakeholders, and the names given to these
various theories are proof of this: empowerment evaluation, collaborative evaluation,
participatory evaluation, utilisation-focused evaluation, democratic evaluation,
deliberative democratic evaluation, responsive evaluation, developmental evaluation,
inclusive evaluation, and so on.

But what can be gleaned that is of relevance to this research? One, while there may be
considerable debate on who should assign value to evaluation findings, what is clear
from the literature is that all stakeholders impacted by public policies can and do
assign value. This is done whether or not it is recognised in a formal evaluation
process. This has important implications for effectiveness of policy evaluation and its
capacity to lead to policy learning. Two, while there is a debate as to who should be
the target of policy evaluation, the important lesson is that it can be targeted at
different stakeholders, and depending on who is targeted, evaluation can yield
different results. This goes back to the capacity of stakeholders to assign value to
public policy for themselves, values which may not be similar to those espoused in
the stated policy rhetoric.

This has implications for the evaluation of skills policies in particular. It makes the
case for an inclusive approach to skills policy evaluation. By its very nature, skills
policies involve many stakeholders at different levels, who negotiate such policies
within their peculiar organisational and socio-psychological contexts, to create value
as they perceive it. This is also a case for the greater use of qualitative research
methodology in skills policy evaluation, as quantitative, positivist methods do not
have the capacity to unravel these issues, especially where such policies intersect with
individuals and their contexts.

It is also important to note in the policy evaluation literature, the link between
performance management, auditing and policy evaluation. This has to be understood
in the context of the new public management (NPM) system, and the wider public
sector reform agenda of many developed and developing countries, with its emphasis
38

on increased levels of accountability and public sector performance, where evaluation

came to be seen as being part of the accountability mechanism. They are however not
one and the same, but can be seen as complementary (Nielson & Ejler, 2008; Wong,
2004). Some of the major distinctions among them are as follows:
Performance management concentrates on collecting performance information
against measurable targets, whereas policy evaluation is usually broader in
scope and purpose, and seeks to examine intended as well as unintended
results, and ideally is willing to question the validity and appropriateness of a
policy (Blalock, 1999; Davies, 1999).
Auditing is usually concentrated on assessing the level of compliance within a
legislative context, more often than not, focusing on fiscal responsibility,
whereas evaluation does not tend to be constrained by such legal boundaries
(Chelimsky, 1996; Leeuw, 1996).

Auditing, performance management and evaluation have gained increasing

significance under the NPM systems in many countries, as it became necessary to
develop such systems to manage accountability for results in a context of
decentralisation and devolution of authority. Auditing in this context has become an
expanded field, extended to examining whether citizens have received value for
money in public services. Increasingly in the public management literature and policy
rhetoric, the distinctions among them have been blurring, the danger being the
watering down of evaluation rigour, and the hijacking of evaluation for political
purposes. NPM introduced a heavy emphasis on outputs, or the direct products or
services delivered for all spheres of government, with the expectation that these
would facilitate the achievement of outcomes or change in behaviour, function or
status in the target recipients of outputs (Logic Model Development Guide, 2001). In a
bid to develop accountability mechanisms, it then became easier and politically
expedient to focus on what was measurable, and the development of quantitative
indicators of output as proxies for desired outcomes, including for the education
sector. A preference for econometric measures to evaluate policy developed; this is
particularly evident in the emphasis on the use of quantitative data in assessing
performance in the vocational education and training sector, typically judged by the

39

number of trainees. According to Velada et al (2007) the expansion of training

investment has led to increasing pressure to account for training outcomes.

Much of what is reported under the guise of evaluation within VET is really
performance information dressed up, which provides information to support
government interventions, without any real understanding of how VET investment
creates value (if it does), thus the hard questions go unanswered. Other major pitfalls
of this approach, particularly in the context of competency based VET policy, have
been already highlighted under the human capital theory section. An analysis done by
Fleetwood and Hesketh (2006) on the under-theorisation of the HRM-Performance
link sheds additional light on the limitations of positivist methods of evaluation of
VET policy. They point out that quantitative methods of evaluation of HR practices
sees these practices, including learning as observed events that can be quantified and
as such event regularities can be determined, and predictions made. They further
argue that the weakness of HR theory lies in its reliance on these methods to develop
theory, which makes these theories empirically weak, as HRM occurs within complex
systems; as such they propose that a more useful approach would be to examine
complex causality, which they define as the wider conflux of interacting causal
phenomena (Fleetwood & Hesketh, 2006, p. 1982, 2007). Their analysis is
instructive, and I believe points the way to improve evaluative practices for VET.
Another pitfall to note here is that quantitative measures often emphasize the average:
the average income, years of schooling, and so on; however, from a policy
perspective, what is often problematic are the extremities, in particular what factors
create and change them and how, questions not easily, if ever, answered solely
through econometric analyses (Nolan & Wong, 2004).

Notwithstanding the criticism of over dependence on quantitative analyses in policy

evaluation, it is important to recognise that the field of policy evaluation has been
affected by a number of externalities, not least of which is the political context in
which it is located, and the level of prestige it holds with power brokers (Fischer,
2007). The field is also impacted by capability issues. Policy evaluation is reliant on
access to quality data. For example, ideal longitudinal panel data to analyse long
effect of policy is very difficult and expensive to collect; it is simply easier to collect
accessible quantitative data (like number of trainees), particularly if it suits the short
40

term political needs of the time. Also, quality policy evaluations are contingent on the
employment of quality policy evaluators, who are not always available, particularly in
smaller labour markets (Lunt, 2003).

But what has been the New Zealand policy evaluation experience? Similar to the USA
and the UK, interest in social research grew during the Second World War, with an
emphasis on such topics as employee morale and war production. Prior to this, any
semblance of evaluation activities were limited to the conduct of Royal Commissions
and the collection of routine statistics (Lunt, 2003). In the late 1960s and 1970s,
interest in social science research was again renewed in New Zealand, as was the case
in the USA and UK, post-war period of economic prosperity came to an end, and
difficult social problems requiring solution re-surfed, problems such as increased
youth delinquency, rise in dependence on social benefits and public assistance, and
poorer social and economic outcomes for Maori New Zealanders (Lunt & Davidson,
2003). In keeping with trends elsewhere in the broader field of social science
research, the methodological approach to evaluation during this time was mainly
positivist.

With the launch of sweeping public sector reforms in the New Zealand public sector
in the 1980s and 1990s (discussed elsewhere) came, at least in theory, an increased
emphasis in evaluation as a means of meeting the obligations under the State Sector
Act 1988, Public Finance Act 1989 and the Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994. There was
an increasing demand for evidence to support governments decision-making as well
as to meet needs for accountability and value for money for public services (SavilleSmith, 2003). However, according to many commentators, this demand for evidencebased policies was not put into practice in many instances. Firstly the changes served
to undermine the evaluation capacity within the public sector, and much of reform
activities went ahead without the use of evaluation evidence (Jesson, 1999; Lunt &
Davidson, 2003; Trotman, 2003). Additionally perhaps due to capacity limitations
there has been a tendency to rely on meta-analyses of research done in other
countries, and to extrapolate similarities and differences to the New Zealand context;
this however runs the risk of the findings having limited relevance to New Zealand,
given that much of the research relates to countries with vastly different socioeconomic conditions (Pawson, 2002; Turner & Washington, 2002).
41

Since the late 1990s and beyond, there has been renewed emphasis on policy
evaluation in New Zealand, brought about in part by the receptivity towards
evaluation by the Labour-led government elected in 1999. The debate since has
changed focus, and there is an increased emphasis on building evaluation capacity (as
evidenced by the establishment of the Social Policy Evaluation and Research
Committee, and reviews conducted by the State Services Commission), focusing
research on impact evaluation and the achievement of outcomes, and best practices
and methods for policy evaluation, including appropriate methods to take into account
Maori values (Lunt & Davidson, 2003).

Evaluation Commentary

Many commentators offer a variety of assessment of the programme theory of

skills/VET = economic performance + high wages. Commentators point to the fact
that the promises of VET policy have not been fulfilled. These are as follows:
Growth of low wage jobs While high skill jobs have increased as a
proportion of jobs in the developed world, this has been overshadowed by the
increase in low wage, low skill jobs characterised by routine, repetitive tasks
(Chappel et al., 2002; Rainbird & Munro, 2003). This has been coupled with
significant growth in income inequality over the last twenty years in many
developed countries including New Zealand, and the United States
(Acemoglu, 2003; Baxendine et al., 2005; Pool et al., 2005a, 2005b, 2006).
The source of this inequality has been blamed on the rising skill premia, where
persons with higher skills levels have been able to command increasingly
higher wages vis--vis the rest of the workforce (Acemoglu, 2003). Further,
there is an increasingly popular view and some evidence that high skill jobs
are also under threat from developing countries. Contrary to the accepted
belief, developing countries are now also seeking to compete in the global
marketplace on the basis of quality, innovation as well as price (Brown et al.,
2008; Richardson & Miller-Lewis, 2002).

42

Importance of demand Several commentators have bemoaned the fact that

VET policy suffers from an illogical programme logic, in that it assumes that
increasing

the

supply

of

skills

translates

automatically

into

the

accomplishment of the higher levels of productivity and performance. These

commentators argue that demand-led strategies are necessary if VET policies
are to succeed (Keep, 2007; Keep & Mayhew, 2004; Nordman et al., 2006).
There is increasing evidence of over-supply and under-utilisation of skills,
particularly in the Canadian and UK contexts, and increasing credential
inflation where employers are requiring more qualifications than needed for
many jobs (Livingstone, 2005; Rainbird & Munro, 2003; Tight, 2002). Several
researchers and commentators in the UK also argue that without adequate
incentives, firms could choose, and do choose, quite rationally to pursue lowcost, low skills strategies, as this is a viable option, particularly in many
service industries, such as the hotel and food manufacturing sectors (P.
Edwards et al., 2007; K. Evans & Rainbird, 2002; Finegold, 1999; Finegold &
Soskice, 1988; Grugulis, 2003; Korczynski, 2005).
The inadequacies of the unitarist perspective It is argued that the approach to
VET policy, in particular market/industry-led competency models, such as
exist in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, takes a unitarist, employerfocused perspective, thereby ignoring both workers interests, and the need for
other structural and institutional arrangements necessary to foster skill
development. This limited vision and approach has led to the observed
shortcomings in VET policy outcomes. Much of the rhetoric that gave rise to
the focus on skills and its role in the new economy was expounded by
policymakers, and representatives of certain interests and paradigms. For
example, Robert Reich, the champion of the new economy mentioned
earlier, was a former Secretary of Labour in the USA and therefore
represented a particular set of political and economic interests. Most of the
literature supporting and advocating this rhetoric was devoid of evidence
involving union/workers perspective. Moreover, the rhetoric has presented
learning as an individualised activity, thereby increasing emphasis on
individual responsibility for their skill development, to the neglect of other
deeper structural issues that may impact this skill development. One of these

43

issues is the change in employment relations, and the rise of the employability
theory. It is argued that the growth in casual work and sub-contracting,
increasing corporate focus on short term profits and cost reduction, and
widespread labour market deregulation together act as a disincentive for skill
development, which requires factors such as employee loyalty and
commitment (Chappell et al., 2002; Hall et al, 2000; Richardson & Liu, 2008).
In comparing the UK NVQ system and German dual system, Grugulis noted
that NVQ system is unitarist, whereas German system is pluralist in nature,
taking account of stakeholders interests, which fostered buy-in and increased
the perceived value of skills (Grugulis, 2003). The importance of the strength
of regulatory and institutional frameworks, stakeholders interest as well as
business strategies are being more recognised as critical to not only skill
development but to increasing productivity of firms and nations. This has
been, for example, the basis for the skill eco-systems project in the Australian
context (Buchanan et al., 2001; Hall & Lansbury, 2006; Payne, 2007; M.
Porter, 1998).

What these perspectives highlight is that the need to examine the importance of sector
and workplace characteristics in creating beneficial outcomes for VET stakeholders.
Of particular importance is the recognition of the differences in power relations in
workplaces, which places great reliance on employer characteristics in creating VET
outcomes. These perspectives however also define and limit the value of VET to
employees as access to high wage jobs, and assume a polarisation between employer
and employees goals and motivation.

Literature Synthesis
A synthesis of the literature discussed in the preceding sections of this chapter reveals
four broad paradigms, and each paradigm carries with it a particular logic and
epistemological and ontological perspective (refer Table 2.2).

44

Table 2.2 Emerging Paradigms from the Literature

Human Capital/VET Policy Logic
Stakeholder Theory Logic
Strategic HRD Logic
Critical HRD Logic
The first is what will be referred to as human capital/VET policy paradigm. Its
prevailing logic is depicted in Table 2.3:
Table 2.3: Human Capital/VET Policy Logic
Leads to increased productivity/social and
economic mobility/wages
Participation in VET by employers and employees
In Recognisable skills according to National
Standards
Government invests in workplace skills
development
This is a paradigm largely expressed in VET policy documents, which is heavily
influenced by economics, and speaks to a logic of how skills policy ought to work at a
macro-level, particularly in competency-based VET models. Here there is a heavy
leaning towards seeing skills, and the benefits of skills policies as facts that can be
mainly observed and quantified almost separately from individual actors. So skills
become observable and reported through qualifications and the meeting of national
standards. The value of skills can also be observed through wages, unemployment
rates, progression and so on. Even the social benefits of skills are also determined
through observable, and/or quantifiable indicators such as increases in numbers of
minorities completing qualifications or wage effects of qualifications. In this
paradigm, the roles of stakeholders are assumed, in that stakeholders are seen as
willing participants in the equation as the benefits of participation are mutually
valuable. Employers will have more profitable businesses; employees will have more
recognisable skills that are marketable and command higher wages in the labour
market, and policymakers would have engendered social and economic progress.

The second paradigm that emerges from the literature is what will be referred to as the
Strategic HRD Logic in Table 2.4:

45

Table 2.4: Strategic HRD Logic

More profits/Productivity
More productive, happier employees
ALIGNMENT
Business Strategy

HRD practices

Other HR practices
recruitment/compensation/work
systems

This is the paradigm often reflected in the HRD literature, and has among its chief
advocates numerous HR consultants of great renown. The logic expressed here
focuses mainly at the micro-level of work organisations: if there is alignment among a
firms business strategy, and all of its HR related activities including its HRD
activities, then this will result in happier, more productive employees and greater
levels of organisational productivity and profitability. It varies from the human
capital/VET policy perspective, in that it purports a more complex combination of
factors that have to be aligned in order for the desired outcomes to be achieved.
However, the two paradigms are quite similar in two respects. The roles of the
stakeholders are again assumed and the outcomes of HRD investment are deemed to
be equally beneficial to all involved. Also in the Strategic HRD alignment
perspective, the value of HRD investment (when it is evaluated) is defined in terms of
what can be observed or quantified. So measures such as return on investment,
retention rate, surveys using Likert-type scales and variety of quantitative indicators
are often advocated in the literature.

I propose that due to the similarities between the two paradigms, they can be merged
into one paradigm, which will be called the Strategic HRD/VET Policy logic (see
Figure 2.1):

46

Figure 2.1 The Strategic HRD/VET Policy Logic

Government
invests in
skills/VET

Development of
qualifications according
to National Standards

Skills
imparted will
be used
strategically

These lead to
recognisable &
valuable skills

Employers & employees

willingly invest/pursue
these qualifications

Increased productivity/social &

economic mobility/wages

In this programme logic, government investment in workplace skills leads to the

development of qualifications that meet the needs of both employers and employees,
who then are able to implement the relevant Strategic HRD practices, included VET,
to maximise skill utilisation and lead to organisational harmony, profitability and
productivity. The accumulative effect of sufficient numbers of firms so engaged in
VET and Strategic HRD and management practices will then produce beneficial
outcomes at the societal level. There is a harmonisation of macro-level policy action,
with micro-level/organisational strategy that produces the mutually beneficial
outcomes of increased productivity, profitability, socio-economic progress and wage
effects.

From the policy literature, particularly from the policy evaluation theorists, and
practitioners who advocate for the involvement of stakeholders in policy evaluation to
varying degrees, emerges another paradigm. This will be referred to as the
Stakeholder Theory logic, depicted in Figure 2.2:

47

Figure 2.2: Stakeholder Theory Logic

Stakeholder
A & their
environment

Stakeholder
B & their
environment

Stakeholder
C & their
environment
It is depicted as a cycle rather than as a linear process, as production of outcomes is
seen as an iterative process. The logic here is that stakeholders involvement is
important to have more desired policy implementation and outcomes. If applied to the
context of VET policy, by this logic, the value of VET policy is not assumed but
flows out of an iterative process of interaction and dialogue among stakeholders. The
value of VET policy could be seen as observable facts such as numbers of trainees,
but there is room to consider that its value may not be observable and is bound up in
the stakeholders themselves, and not necessarily separate from them. This perspective
also recognises the potential for conflicting values. As a result, there would be a
reliance on qualitative and interpretive enquiry and the use of its attendant research
tools in order to gain understanding of outcomes.
48

The fourth paradigm that emerges will be referred to as the Critical HRD logic. As the
name suggests, it is very much influenced by the small but growing Critical HRD
theorists from critical management studies perspective. However, one could also add
industrial/employment relations writers in this category, as well as challengers of the
logic of skills = productivity perspective (Keep, 2009; Lamm & Rasmussen, 2008).
What they all share in common is an appreciation of the role of power and conflict in
determining the benefits of skills initiatives, whether at the micro or macro levels. At
the micro level, it is understood that the employers and employees do not share equal
power, and this impacts how training is used, and accessed, and whether training is
always beneficial to employees. Like the Stakeholder Theory logic, this then leads to
a leaning towards qualitative and interpretive research methods in order to examine
the outcomes of skills investment from varied political perspectives. At a macro level,
the outcomes of skills investment are seen largely as observable facts, similar to the
human capital/VET policy logic. However these writers rely mainly on quantitative
data to disprove the skills = productivity/prosperity paradigm, as they point to such
data as the emergence of job insecurity, low productivity performance vis--vis
increased skill investment, the role of labour market dynamics and growth of low
wage jobs, as proof of their position. Unlike the other three paradigms it is difficult to
diagrammatically represent it, as the other three paradigms are prescriptive, and are
underpinned by a need to achieve some sort of end result. The Critical HRD logic can
be seen as more critical and descriptive of why certain end results are not met, a
perverse logic, as seen in Table 2.5:

Table 2.5: Critical HRD Logic

This diminishes national productivity and creates social inequity
These workers are mostly doomed to a low wage, low skill existence
These workers in these low paying jobs also have no incentive to invest in skills
themselves, either because they cannot afford it or see limited scope for increased
earnings from the investment
As these organisations are still profitable, they have no incentive to invest in skills
This creates a large number of low skill, low paying jobs within profitable
organisations
Changes in the global economy has led to growth in the service sector

49

It can be argued that the Stakeholder theory logic and the Critical HRD logic share
some common characteristics. One similarity is the recognition of the role of conflict
and power differentials among stakeholders, which impacts on how decisions are
made and the distribution of beneficial outcomes. In both programme theories then,
outcomes are not viewed as necessarily being mutually beneficial or value-free. Both
also advocate the empowerment of stakeholders, particularly those who within the
normal power relationships often have limited control and agency. This involvement
of stakeholders also extends to the approach to evaluation, which is a preference for
qualitative enquiry to give voice to stakeholders perspectives. Also quantitative
methods and data are not ignored, but they are viewed as value-laden and political.

Given these similarities, I also propose that these two can be merged, into what is
being termed the Critical HRD/Stakeholder Logic on VET outcomes as depicted in
Figure 2.3:
Figure 2.3 Critical HRD/Stakeholder Logic
Government invests in VET

Qualifications are developed

Lack of
stakeholder
involvement/mis
alignment/Poor
perception of
VET

Low quality qualifications,

Limited or no employer
engagement as their needs are
not met

Skewed/Low Uptake, Low

level of upskilling, low wage
jobs, low level of skill
utilisation, limited or no
impact on firm profitability

Unequal
distribution of
power in
workplaces

Limited socio-economic
progress, lower productivity,
low wage effects, social
disparity
50

This logic model echoes the low skills road thesis (Buchanan et al 2000; Finegold and
Soskice, 1999). It is also seen as a descriptive logic of the theory in use as far as VET
outcomes are concerned, and acts as a countervailing argument to the Strategic
HRD/VET logic which some argue is the theory espoused by policymakers and HRD
consultants. The critical HRD/Stakeholder logic argues that despite increasing levels
of VET investment on the part of governments, particularly in English-speaking
countries, the commensurate improvements in productivity, skills levels, wage effects,
and socio-economic mobility have not been realised, and at the root of this is the
differences among stakeholders in terms of involvement and their values. At the
macro-level, government funding sometimes creates perverse incentives for
qualifications providers to focus on easy to develop qualifications to meet numerical
targets. This is often with limited reference to what employers and employees actually
need or value. The result is low level qualifications or qualifications that meet a
limited number of employers and employees needs. At the organisational level, even
when there is uptake of qualifications, the power relationships within workplaces
often means that employees have limited decision-making power on what VET to
pursue or on the extent to which any learning from VET engagement can be applied
to work. Additionally, it is argued that there are some sectors and firms that operate
profitably using a low wage/low skill model, and as such, have no incentive to
engage in VET. This all then leads to the poor outcomes, such as wage and social
disparity, low skill levels etc.

In summary, this chapter has explored the main debates in the policy and academic
literature pertaining to skills and VET. It has highlighted gaps in the evaluation of
VET policy, in particular the limited understanding of how VET creates values for
multiple stakeholders. Importantly, it has synthesized the literature to arrive at two
paradigms of VET value creation, which provide a frame of reference by which the
research data can be analysed, a point that shall be further discussed in the
methodology chapter.
The following chapter provides a historical overview and analysis of the
implementation and evaluation of Industry Training Strategy in New Zealand to date,
in light of this broader literature.

51

CHAPTER 3 - NEW ZEALAND CONTEXT INDUSTRY TRAINING

This chapter is a review of the literature on the New Zealand Industry Training
Strategy and system. It outlines the key characteristics of the system, analyses the
background and historical context, including the factors leading to its inception, and
an analysis of its implementation through to the present. The chapter concludes with
an examination of how the strategy has been evaluated to date.
The Industry Training system can be aptly described as New Zealands largest
workplace learning programme, and is considered to be part of the tertiary education
sector, with over 200,000 registered trainees annually (High Performance in ITOs,
2009). The qualifications received are nationally recognised on New Zealands
National Qualifications Framework (NZQF), which is developed and maintained by
the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA). Industry Training is funded
jointly by the New Zealand government, mainly through the Industry Training Fund,
and through employers contributions.

Currently there are 39 ITOs covering most sectors in the economy, but excluding
most of the health and education sectors. Industry Training is a competency-based
VET model, which uses a common platform, the NZQF for certifying and recognising
different levels of qualifications from the secondary to the post-graduate level.
Industry Training covers a wide range of formal training offerings aligned to Levels 2
to 5 on the NZQF, which are certificate and diploma programmes; the majority of
Industry Training is focused at Levels 2 and 3. Programmes are divided into unit
standards which are assigned a certain number of credits. Programmes vary widely in
terms of the number of credits required for completion. At one end of the spectrum,
there are limited credit programmes (LCP), which offer 40 credit training offerings,
and are usually used as introductory training programmes, or to cover more targeted
and specific training needs. At the other end are programmes which require as much
as over 300 credits for completion, and have a duration period of 2 or more years. The
Industry Training System also plays an additional role of being the recognition of
prior learning (RPL) system recognising and accrediting existing skills levels of
workers (Dyson & Keating, 2005).

52

There are a number of key players within the Industry Training System. Figure 3.1
highlights these, as well as their inter-relationships:

Figure 3.1 Key Players in the Industry Training System

Being a part of the tertiary education sector, its parameters and strategic direction is
outlined in the New Zealand Tertiary Education Strategy (Tertiary Education Strategy
2007-2012 incorporating Statement of Tertiary Education Outcomes 2008-2010,
2007). The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) is the body currently charged with
setting the policy framework, establishing and implementing the funding
arrangements for the sector, and setting performance standards and monitoring the
performance of the sector against these standards.

Another important player is the Industry Training Federation (ITF), and the industry
training organisations (ITOs). The ITF is the umbrella body representing ITOs, and its
main functions are policy advocacy on behalf of ITOs, and in partnership with a
variety of stakeholders, to conduct research and promulgate best practices among
ITOs. ITOs main responsibilities are to develop and arrange training for workplaces
within their designated sector. They also play the role of providing strategic
leadership to their sectors in training and development needs. Additionally, they have
53

delegated authority from the NZQA for the accreditation and the quality assurance of
training.

The NZQA is the body responsible for the development of the quality assurance
standards and the NZQF, to which Industry Training qualifications (among other
tertiary qualifications) are aligned.

While the ITOs have responsibility for training design, they do not deliver the training
themselves. Industry Training delivery is carried out either on the job, or within
private training establishments (PTEs) or polytechnic institutions.

The training implementation is governed by a training agreement among the trainees,

their employers and the relevant ITO.

It is important to examine the assumptions that underpin the design of the Industry
Training Strategy, particularly the roles differing stakeholders would play in creating
the required outcomes, and how those outcomes are assessed. The role of the state in
the Industry Training Strategy is to set the policy framework and provide the
necessary funding incentives and policy infrastructure, such as the NZQF to stimulate
Industry Training. This represents a shift in the role of the state, away from being a
direct provider of training, or apprenticeships, both in terms of design and delivery.
The states approach appears to fluctuate between being unitarist and pluralist, in that,
the design favours employers needs as being the superior driver to design and even
deliver training. On the other hand, being the state, its approach has a pluralist focus
on broader outcomes such as: increased equity for disadvantaged groups (example
women, Maori and Pasifika peoples), improved labour market outcomes (example
decreased unemployment), and socio-economic development for New Zealand. Its
funding incentives are also evidence of this pluralist outlook, in that there is
recognition that employers are likely to under-invest in Industry Training, and as
such, their participation in its provision needed to be incentivised.

The development of the NZQF is the other major contribution of the state in the
provision of Industry Training and the production of its outcomes. The main premise
of the framework is that the skills can be defined as discrete unit standards that come
54

together into qualifications which can then be transferrable across the wider labour
market. The other major premise of the framework is that the assessment of skills can
be done in a wider range of environments, not only in training institutions but also
preferably within workplaces. The state then uses the attainment of unit standards and
qualifications as the evidence to determine whether their desired outcomes are
achieved. This aligns with the emphasis in public sector management, on the greater
use of performance indicators to manage performance and increase accountability for
public service delivery, in this case, the delivery of educational outcomes in the form
of Industry Training.

Another major stakeholder is ITOs. These entities are intended to represent their
sectors training interests, by designing training in keeping with sectoral needs. To a
certain extent then, ITOs can be said to be unitarist in their outlook, in that the
training needs are largely employer-driven. On the other hand, trainee support has
over time, particularly since 2000s, has been another major focus of ITOs. This is
evidenced in their efforts to address pedagogical concerns of trainees, particularly
those with literacy and numeracy challenges. The assessment of unit standards is a
function that is delegated from the NZQA to ITOs. The training of assessors,
particularly to assess training delivered on the job, is a critical function of ITOs.
Additionally, quality assurance is also another critical function of ITOs, which is done
mainly through a process called moderation, which involves auditing pre-determined
samples of assessments against quality standards. The logic of the Industry Training
system then, is that assessors have the necessary competence to assess unit standards
with a level of consistency that would then be accepted by the wider labour market as
an indicator of skill level.

Employers, and by extension workplaces and managers/supervisors play a central role

in the design, delivery and assessment of Industry Training. Employers under the
Industry Training Strategy are expected to identify and communicate training needs to
ITOs in order to shape the design of qualifications. They are also expected to engage
in Industry Training, albeit through the motivation of access to funding, to subsidise
their training costs. They are also expected to play a critical role in the delivery of
training, through provision of opportunities to practice job skills, and in the
assessment of these job skills. Additionally, in the design of the Industry Training
55

system, workplaces may also provide assessment services, and requisite

administration services attached, whether they undertake these themselves or engage
the services of PTEs or polytechnics. There is then an implied investment on the part
of employers in terms of providing workplaces that allow for the application,
assessment and administration of Industry Training. There is also the underlying
assumption that employers are driven by the need to have profitable businesses,
therefore they will only engage in Industry Training if they are deriving this value
from skills investment. Therefore employer engagement in Industry Training is seen
as a proxy for skills use, and socio-economic investment, as business profitability
increases.

The stance of trainees and their unions in the Industry Training system is then
assumed to be one of willingness to engage in Industry Training. Trainees are
assumed to be willing to participate in and complete Industry Training qualifications.
In relation to their employers, they are expected to use skills learnt to improve
organisational performance. From the perspective of the state as policymaker, they are
expected to improve their earning power and employment opportunities, expectations
that would be shared by the trainees themselves and their representatives. The
mutually reinforcing benefits of Industry Training are encapsulated in the training
agreement that is signed upon initial engagement in training, which is between the
ITO, the employer and the trainee/employee.

Background

New Zealand, like many other countries, bought into the ideology of high wage, high
skill economy, and adopted a market-led, competency-based industry training
strategy. It is important to examine the contextual factors that led to the
implementation of its Industry Training Strategy. The Industry Training Strategy must
be viewed and understood in the context of the wider public sector reform agenda
which commenced in 1984, with the election of the Labour Government. The post
World War II era represented a period of economic boom in New Zealand (Avery et
al., 1999; Brosnan & Rea, 1992; Elkin, 1998; New Zealand Economic Growth: an
analysis of performance and policy, 2004). It was an economy based on primary
production, and founded on the principles of the welfare state and principles of
56

universal rights to income, education, health care and security of employment, among
others. These principles were considered sound at the time, as it translated into
economic prosperity in 1953, New Zealand was one of the three or four wealthiest
countries as measured by per capita GDP, reflecting a national ethos that considered
the country as Gods own.(McLean et al., 2003, p. 50).

However several major shifts and shocks in the international economy starting in the
1960s brought about major crises in the New Zealand economy. Chief among these
were the loss of preferential trading arrangements with the United Kingdom (UK),
when the UK joined the European Common Market. As an economy characterised by
dependence on primary production and the stability that preferential trading
arrangements provided, this resulted in increased levels of competition (Crocombe et
al., 1991). Other major shocks affecting the economy included the collapse in the
price of wool on the world market following the Korean War, the introduction of
synthetics (as a cheaper alternative to wool), and the oil crises of 1973 and 1979 (New
Zealand Economic Growth: an analysis of performance and policy, 2004). All these
shocks together resulted in a fall in GDP per capita growth vis--vis other OECD
countries, increasing levels of national debt and unemployment; the welfare state was
now required levels of government expenditure that the economy could no longer
afford. Another major contributor to New Zealands economic woes was the
inappropriate institutional arrangements which were viewed as highly centralised
and promoted widespread regulation, protection and indexation and unworkable
fiscal policies, centralised wage bargaining, protection of the trading sector and a
highly centralised and regulated public sector (New Zealand Economic Growth: an
analysis of performance and policy, 2004. P. 40).

This gave way in 1984 to sweeping public sector reforms, which were underpinned by
the philosophy of deregulation, decentralisation and market economics, and which
covered almost all areas of the economy from fiscal policy, to energy, transport,
industrial regulation, business law, environment, taxation, government expenditure,
social services, education and the labour market (Elkin, 1998).

But what was happening specifically on the education front, and specifically in regard
to industry training? It is important to note what became termed as industry training
57

was mainly called apprenticeship prior to 1984, but also included adult education and
continuing education initiatives as well (Boshier, 1980; Murray, 2004). During the
1980s the government commissioned numerous evaluations of the entire education
sector, and the consensus among them all was the performance of New Zealands
education sector was dismal (Taskforce on Skills Development, 1990; Hawke, 1988).
The Picot Report of 1988 summarised the inadequacies of the wider education system
it was marked by over-centralisation, complexity, lack of information and choice,
ineffective management practices, and feelings of powerlessness (Hawke, 1988, p. 4).
Hawke further argued that with minor adjustment, these characteristics also described
the post-compulsory education system of the time (Hawke, 1988, p. 4). The report of
the Taskforce on Skill Development succinctly outlines the state of crisis as seen by
the policymakers of the day:
-

New Zealand had low rates of participation in post-compulsory education,

ranking 17th out of 18 OECD countries; only 40% of school leavers go on to
education beyond the compulsory secondary level.

In 1989, almost half of New Zealand school leavers had no qualifications;

46% of the workforce had no qualifications.

There was a decline in apprenticeships, brought on the restructuring of the

economy in the 1980s and the subsequent retrenchments in both the public and
private sector and reduction in training capacity (Taskforce on Skills
Development, 1990, pp. 10-11).

The apprenticeship system at the time was also seen to be providing inequitable
access to skill development, particularly for Maori, Pasifika peoples, women and
other disadvantaged groups who also experienced higher levels of unemployment, and
was also limited in coverage to a few trades. As mentioned earlier, the time served
characteristic of the apprenticeship system was seen as not meeting the need of the
modern economy, and it was felt that there was a need to move towards a
competency-based model of skill development, that could assure the quality of
trainees (N. Green et al., 2003; Hawke, 1988; Hawke et al., 1986; Reform and Change
in Industry Training Conference, 1992). Additionally, by 1991, unemployment levels
had reached record highs, with over 200,000 registered unemployed; of this number
approximately 42% had no qualifications Reform and Change in Industry Training
Conference, 1992). The common consensus noted in policy documents and
58

evaluations of the education sector during this period, was that having a highly skilled
workforce was critical in gaining competitive advantage:
An effective response to the skills crisis cannot be delayed until the country
can better afford it. Failure to act now is going to result in drastic reductions to
standard of living. Investment in a skills base will make a substantial
contribution to the recovery of the New Zealand economy(Taskforce on
Skills Development, 1990, p. 5).

This should be seen within the context of the prevailing ideology at the time in New
Zealand and elsewhere, irrespective of political affiliation (and which is still very
dominant today) of the relevance and significance of higher education and training in
creating high skill high wage knowledge economies. The essence of this school of
thought is that with the advent of Asian tigers (for example Japan) and low cost
producers such as China and India, developed countries need to remain competitive
through innovation and the development of higher quality goods and services for
niche markets where people are prepared to pay premium prices. Therefore the labour
force must have an adequate supply of skilled life-long learning knowledge workers,
who can generate these new products and services, work with ever changing
technologies, flexible work arrangements in jobs that utilise higher skills and
therefore attract higher wages. This then is the formula for socio-economic
advancement (Skills for productivity, employment growth and development, 2008).
The rhetoric surrounding Industry Training at the time was highly idealistic. It
appeared to be a one stop VET shop addressing upgrade training needs of current
workers, retraining needs for those needing to change careers based on changing job
markets, and remedial training for those with limited or no prior success in formal
education (Grubb & Ryan, 1999).

Implementation

It is important to note that labour market and skills training reform came about in the
early 1990s, about eight years after the start of the reform programme, and substantial
deregulation of other aspects of the economy. Labour market reform, launched by the
introduction of the Employment Contracts Act (ECA) in 1991, brought about the
reinstatement of voluntary unionism, freedom of association, freedom of contractual
59

forms, minimisation of worker protection and enterprise bargaining (Elkin, 1998).

The Industry Training Act of 1992 could be seen in part as compensation for loss of
worker power brought about by the ECA; increasing access to training would help to
restore equality in the balance of power between workers and employers, as more
skilled workers could use their skills as a bargaining device, at least theoretically
(McLaughlin, 2006).

The stated objective of the strategy was as follows:

Securing a high standard of living for all New Zealanders depends on New Zealand
being internationally competitive for which a key requirement is a highly skilled and
adaptable workforce, which can be achieved through effective industry skills training
(Reform and Change in Industry Training Conference 1992).

The key features of the strategy were that it was industry-led, with government
assuming the role of training facilitator, the training was linked to a National
Qualifications Framework, and that it provided increased access to formal for
disadvantaged groups and sectors with minimal training provision.
1) Industry-Led Government saw its role as setting the foundation for all industries
to take control of industry training design, and delivery in keeping with industry
needs. This would largely be accomplished through industries forming Industry
Training Organisations (ITOs). Under the Industry Training Act 1992, the roles of
ITOs are:

Setting of national industry standards

Purchasing training; and

Quality assurance of training providers and workplace learning (N. Green et

al., 2003; Industry Training Act, 1992).

2) NZQF - Central to the Industry Training strategy (and indeed New Zealands wider
education reforms) is the creation of the NZQF aimed at providing individuals with
nationally-recognized and portable credentials, that reflect attainment of knowledge
and skills (Johnson cited by McLean et al, 2003, p. 54). This again is in keeping with
60

similar initiatives in other countries, for example Great Britain, to create national
standards for education. Hence a major feature of the strategy is that all training
should lead to credits towards nationally recognized qualifications. The administration
of the NZQF was and still is the role of the NZQA which is funded by the
Government.

Government also sought to carry out its role as facilitator of the strategy through its
funding arrangements initially through three streams:

Assist in the establishment of ITOs and development of industry qualifications

standards,

Support administrative costs associated with training

Subsidise the costs of block courses and off the job training (N. Green et al.,
2003).

Oversight of the system was the responsibility of the Education and Training Support
Agency (ETSA), which later became Skill New Zealand.

The Industry Training Federation was subsequently formed in 1996, as an advocate

body for ITOs to government and other agencies and sector groups (Industry Training
and Modern Apprenticeships statistics as at 30 September 2006, 2006; Industry
Training Skills Leadership: the role of Industry Training Organisations in shaping
skills in the New Zealand economy, 2006).

3) Increased Access to Training - One of the central aims of the strategy was
increased coverage of more industries and improved access to Industry Training
especially for disadvantaged groups such as women, Maori and Pasifika workers.

It is important to note that other complementary workplace learning strategies were

continued and/or instituted by the government during this period, namely the Youth
Traineeship programme (training places purchased by Government from industry to
facilitate young people gaining systematic industry qualifications and work
experience) and the Training Opportunities Programme (targeted at young people

61

with few or no qualifications and disadvantaged members of the labour force)

(Reform and Change in Industry Training Conference, 1992).
During the 1990s, the strategy experienced a number of teething pains, as could be
expected with any new government policy. Smelt was contracted by the government
to undertake a review of ITOs, and this review unearthed a number of administrative
as well as policy challenges (Smelt, 1995). One of the administrative issues noted was
the challenges faced by ITOs in carrying out the very detailed administrative work
involved in developing national standards for their respective industries. Another
issue was the uneven capacity among ITOs, a challenge which persisted until the
Industry Training Strategy review in 2001. As could be expected, industries that
already had a history of cooperation among industry players, and more organised
training cultures were able to better organise and more quickly form ITOs and
national training standards, for example the diary industry. This also impacted the
ability of ITOs to attract funding for their activities, as there was sometimes fierce
competition among ITOs to attract government funding, especially since the
expectation that industry would largely fund industry training has never been realised.
Certainly in the early years of the strategy, the bulk of the funding came from the
governments contribution.

The funding of industry training went through several metamorphoses during the
history of the strategy, but especially during the 1990s. Green et al provides a
comprehensive review of the history of the funding arrangements, and the challenges
experienced along the way (N. Green et al., 2003). The major challenge was to design
an allocative mechanism for distributing the funds in a manner that was equitable and
efficient, in keeping with the needs of each ITO. This was exacerbated by the fact that
many ITOs experience tremendous financial challenges, and did not easily gain
industry buy-in or industry financial support (Smelt 1995). Therefore in the early days
of implementation, those ITOs which were more organised, were better able to secure
bigger portions of the funding pie, which also had implications of equity in the
development and access to training across industries. This lead to the development of
a new funding arrangement, based on the price per Standard Trainee Measure (which
was equivalent to 120 credits in the NQF). This price would vary with each industry
due to differences in input costs.

Another review was undertaken in 1999 and

62

officials felt the funding arrangements encouraged a focus on inputs rather than
outputs, and a preference for off-job training (which attracted more funding). The
funding and reporting arrangements were subsequently redesigned to allow for
reporting of only cash contributions of industry. In 2000, STM prices were frozen at
1999 levels; subsequently ITOs with lower STM prices received a top up to average
price STM (Green et al 2003). Since 2000, both government and industry contribution
for industry funding has been significantly increased from $65m in 2000 to $106m in
2004 on the part of government. For the same period, industry contribution increased
from $27m to $46m (N. Green, et al., 2003). It is noteworthy that the original
intention of industry being the major funding source for industry training has yet to be
realised. The funding arrangements for Industry Training remains differentiated from
the rest of the tertiary education system, and this continues to be a sore point (Baker,
2007; D. Hall, 2004; Seven pillars of growth: a New Zealand perspective, 2007).

Another implementation challenge was the competition for turf that developed among
some ITOs. This was in part brought on by the difficulty experienced in defining the
boundaries of organisations, as the definition of industry was very loosely defined in
the Act (Smelt 1995, The Industry Training Act, 1992). The fact that some
occupational categories and certain skill sets were not unique to any particular
industry also led to confusion, some duplication, and turf wars among ITOs; one of
the classic examples cited in the literature is the power struggles between the Electrotechnology ITO and the Engineering ITO (Knowledge at work, 2001; Smelt, 1995).
These challenges of industry definition and competition, in my view, possibly led to a
multiplicity of ITOs during the 1990s; by 1995, there were 53 ITOs and others
waiting to be formed (Smelt 1995). By 1997, the number of ITOs had stabilised at 51
(Elkin, 1998). The large number of ITOs particularly vis--vis other countries such as
Australia, which is larger with far fewer industry training organisations, has been
viewed as creating layers of bureaucracy for firms, as well as leading to duplication of
effort and dilution of capacity among ITOs. On the other side of the spectrum,
competition within certain industries mitigated against the formation of industry
training for certain industries, one example being Telecom, which was not willing to
share customer service training, which it viewed as being critical to their competitive
position (Smelt, 1995, p. 28).

63

Initially, industry training could only be purchased from polytechnics. This was
subsequently changed following complaints about the lack of relevance of some of the
training offered by the polytechnics. This has led to the increased involvement of
private training establishments in industry training (N. Green et al., 2003). Smelt also
argued that, in addition to the administrative challenges experienced during the
implementation of the strategy, there were fundamental issues related to the premises
upon which the strategy was predicated. This in his view stemmed from the lack of
analysis on the part of government and other key stakeholders in determining the
exact nature of the market failure that the policy was supposed to address (Smelt,
1995, p. 15). This issue will be examined later, as it has implications for expected
outcomes and the challenges experienced in the evaluation of the strategy.

Notwithstanding the challenges as outlined, by 1999/2000, the Industry Training

Strategy was deemed by government as well as some academics as being largely
successful (Elkin, 1998; Knowledge at work, 2001; McLean et al., 2003; Skills for the
knowledge economy: a review of Industry Training in New Zealand, 2001). The major
gains cited were increased training coverage, increased access to training and
increased numbers of trainees (Elkin, 1998). However, as a part of wider tertiary
education review, a number of reviews were conducted of the industry training
strategy between 1999 and 2001, which unearthed a number of weaknesses with the
system. These could be categorised between administrative issues and more strategic
issues. Among the administrative issues cited were the costs incurred by firms,
especially smaller firms that had to do business with multiple ITOs, the lack of clarity
on the linkages between industry training and other parts of the tertiary sector, and the
persistent funding issues (adequacy of funding and differences in funding
arrangements between industry training and other parts of the tertiary education
system) (Knowledge at work, 2001; Skills in the knowledge economy: a review of
Industry Training in New Zealand, 2001).

However there were other strategic problems that emerged from the reviews. Perhaps
among the most critical was the reported skills shortages that emerged in the economy
at the beginning of the 21st century, particularly in the traditional trades areas which
were prior to 1992 covered by the apprenticeship system. This was largely blamed on
what was perceived as the destruction of the apprenticeship system which led to
64

under-investment in trades training (Whiteford, 2006). The skills shortages could also
be linked to the recovery of the New Zealand economy, which has been growing at an
average rate of 3.9% annually since 1999, which has led to the expansion of the
labour force. Another issue facing the system was the uneven coverage and
inequitable access experienced across industries, and for certain groups such as
women, youth, Maori and Pacifika peoples. These strategic issues led to a number of
key changes in the industry training system. First is the introduction of the Modern
Apprenticeship scheme, designed to encourage youth participation in industry training
and to address the problem of uneven unemployment rates among the youth
population. Secondly, the first Tertiary Education Strategy was launched covering the
period 2002-2007, which was spearheaded by a new central body the Tertiary
Education Commission - which replaced Skill New Zealand and which emerged out
of the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission, which was set up to lead the tertiary
education review. One of the features of this review was the increased emphasis on
the strategic leadership role to be played by ITOs in providing leadership for their
industries, in identifying skill needs, and forming strategic alliances among
themselves to improve the quality of service delivery. Crucial to this change of
emphasis was the removal of the restrictions on firms so that they were not limited to
the services of their industry ITO. This has led to a number of mergers among ITOs
and a marked reduction in numbers today the number of ITOs stand at 39.

The increased strategic focus of industry training deserves further contextualisation,

and should be viewed in the light of developments in the political and policy arenas in
New Zealand. With the election of the Labour Alliance government in 1999, and the
economic recovery of New Zealand, came a shift towards improving policy
information and consequently formulation and implementation. This was evidenced in
the creation and reorientation of new departments of government. Along with the
establishment of the Tertiary Education Commission, the Department of Work and
Income (now Ministry of Social Development) was also formed, which resulted in
welfare/work benefits administration shifting away from the Department of Labour,
which assumed greater responsibility for labour market research and analysis of
labour markets trends and economic outlook (Dalziel, 2007). Critical to this shift is
the recognition that the complexity of policy issues required improved policy
information and better designed policy solutions, which required the input of multiple
65

stakeholders, otherwise dubbed as the whole of government approach to policy

implementation, to include not only inputs across government departments and
agencies, but also other stakeholders from community including industry and other
community groupings. This had led to a shift in the policy dialogue, away from seeing
skills as the answer to skills being seen as a part of a policy mix of solutions required
(Developing the second tertiary education strategy: Industry Training Federation
submission to the Ministry of Education, 2006). This whole of government approach
was also accompanied by a shift in economic strategy which since 2000/2001 has
focused on stimulating innovation and regional development, through the launch of
the Growth and Innovation Framework (now the Economic Transformation Agenda),
and the Regional Partnerships programme (Dalziel, 2007; Dalziel & Saunders, 2003).
In addition to ITOs assuming leadership for industry skills gap identification,
polytechnics have given the role of co-ordinating the identification of regional skill
development needs since 2006.

Also since 1999, these policy debates have been enriched by the increase in research
(commissioned by government departments as well as undertaken by academia),
examining issues such as innovation and regional development in New Zealand. In
keeping with much of the debate and criticism of the human capital approach to
education and training elsewhere, the research has unveiled a number of weaknesses
impacting socio-economic development issues in New Zealand. This can be seen in
part as a search for answers to explain New Zealands economic recovery but
continued underperformance in labour productivity vis--vis its competitors. These
weaknesses include the need to build on entrepreneurial capacity to inform the
performance of firms, and ultimately the economy, the need to increase capital
investment, private sector funding of research and development and technology
adoption, as well as insufficient strategic alignment between training in firms and firm
performance in New Zealand (Davis, 2006; Durbin, 2004; Fabling & Grimes, 2006,
2007; Knucket et al., 2002; Lamm et al., 2006; Mason & Osbourne, 2007; Ryan,
2007; Workplace productivity challenge: report of the Workplace Productivity
Working Group, 2004). Another dimension that has been added to the skills debate in
New Zealand is the issue of workplace literacy and numeracy skills. This stems from
the publication of IALS findings both for 1996 and 2006, which indicated that
approximately 43% of adults aged 16 65 have literacy skills below the level needed
66

to function effectively in a knowledge economy, and 51% have inadequate numeracy

skills (Literacy, language and numeracy action plan 2008 2012, 2008, p. 4). Since
these findings have come to light, a plethora of workplace literacy initiatives have
been developed through ITOs, the Department of Labour, the New Zealand Council
of Trade Unions Learning Representatives Programmes, as well as other organisations
(Gray, 2006; Key steps forward for workforce literacy, 2008). All these varied
initiatives point to the recognition of the multi-dimensional characteristic of skills
policy challenges, as well as the multiplicity of interventions addressing the various
dimensions.

In 2008, the Skills New Zealand Tripartite group, consisting of membership from
government, unions, Business NZ and the ITF launched the New Zealand Skills
Strategy (New Zealand Skills Strategy Action Plan, 2008). This represents a crossroads in the discussion on skills in New Zealand, and is seeking to examine skills
within a more holistic context of low productivity, uncompetitive wages, lower levels
of capital investment, workplace practices and an aging workforce population
(Harvey & Harris, 2008; Ryan, 2007; Working smarter: driving productivity growth
through skills, 2008). The challenge faced however is that such a strategy, like the
1999-2001 reviews, is reliant on consultation meetings, which while important and
worthwhile, can lead to two potential dangers: first, the strategy gets hijacked by
interest groups that actually choose or get the opportunity to participate in the process,
thereby ignoring the needs of critical stakeholders; second, the strategy fails to benefit
from in-depth research looking holistically at how skills interact with other
organisational and environmental factors to deliver productivity and other benefits.

Evaluation of Industry Training Strategy

It is important to note that to date there has been no comprehensive assessment of the
impact of the Industry Training Strategy. What exists are performance reports from
government departments (Ministry of Education, Tertiary Education Commission and
its antecedents), as well as the Industry Training Federation, and a few doctoral theses
that have indirectly examined its impact (McLaughlin, 2006; Murray, 2004).
Additionally, there are a number of research papers and articles from policymakers

67

and academia, which includes either commentary on the strategy or from which one
could form certain conclusions about the impact of the strategy.

Performance reports from government departments as well as the Industry Training

Federation tend to evaluate impact utilising a number of quantitative indicators, most
common being the number of trainees. Using this indicator, industry training can be
seen and is seen as a roaring success. In 1992, there was a total of 15,805 participating
in what was then termed apprenticeship training or trades training (N. Green et al.,
2003). By 2010, the number of trainees grew to approximately 190,000, covering 78%
of the workforce (Delivering value: the contribution of ITOs to New Zealand
vocational education and training, 2010). These numbers are further disaggregated by
sex, industry and ethnicity to allow for further analysis. Even using quantitative
indicators however reveal certain weaknesses. One of the goals of the strategy was
improved equity of access to industry training by women, Maori and Pasifika peoples
and other disadvantaged groups. Women still remain underrepresented in industry
training although this position has improved over time, and can be partly explained by
the preponderance of women in other sectors not covered by industry training
(Bryson, 2007; Industry Training and Modern Apprenticeships statistics as as 30
September, 2006, 2006). For Maori and Pasifika peoples, they are now adequately
represented in industry; however further analysis reveals that their training numbers
are concentrated in specific industries such as forestry and seafood (Industry Training
and Modern Apprenticeships statistics as as 30 September, 2006, 2006). Another
quantitative indicator used to measure impact and specifically access is the number of
ITOs that have been formed for industries that previously had no history of organised
training. This should be seen as a plus, but by no means automatically translated into
increased access and equity. A better quantitative indicator of improved equity for
disadvantaged groups is the analysis of the numbers of persons accessing industry
training who had no previous qualification; the numbers here are significant. In 2003,
for example, 26% of all trainees had no previous qualifications; for Maori
participants, 34% had no previous qualifications, and for Pasifika peoples, 37% had
no previous qualifications (Industry Training 2003, 2004). However, these numbers
will only tell us about who accessed training, not about who did not, and this makes it
a somewhat spurious success indicator to use.

68

The counter argument to this however is the use of data related to income, educational
attainment and unemployment levels as well as the growth of knowledge-intensive
occupations to justify investments in education and industry training. Data within
New Zealand and elsewhere consistently reveal that the more highly educated enjoy
higher levels on income and lower levels of unemployment. In New Zealand in 2005,
the median weekly income was$560 for those with an other tertiary
qualification, which would include qualifications gained from Industry Training.
This compared with a median weekly income of $301 for those with school
qualifications and $293 for those with no qualifications (Smart, 2006). In terms of
unemployment levels, in 2005, the unemployment rates for degree holders and
holders of other tertiary qualification were at 2.2% and 2.5% respectively. This
compares with unemployment rates of 4.2% and 6.4% for those with school
qualifications and no qualifications respectively (Smart, 2006).

There are many challenges with the use of these types of quantitative indicators.
Firstly, as the literature has revealed, it is generally agreed that measuring the impact
of education and training, particularly on firm profitability and socio-economic
development is very challenging, as it is difficult to determine the direction of
causality and to differentiate the contribution on various aspects of education and
training as well as to differentiate the impact of education and training from other
factors, such as structure of the economy, industry, and other firm characteristics.
Additionally, industry training is but one segment of the broader education policy of
government, and it is difficult to disaggregate its impact and contribution from other
parts of the tertiary education sector and other government training initiatives, of
which there are many. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that policy makers
should use easy to comprehend statistics, and easy statistics make for useful
arguments to be used on political platforms. However, it is critical that quantitative
data be carefully examined using more rigorous analytical methods, and qualitative
methods to unearth the complexities of policy impacts of industry training. More
rigorous quantitative analyses reveal inequities behind these high-level statistics. A
major contributor to this debate is the findings of a number of studies examining
regional inequalities in New Zealand carried out by the University of Waikato. These
studies revealed that between 1986 and 2001, there was increased income inequality
in New Zealand, which could be explained by differences in the development of
69

regions (Baxendine et al., 2005; Pool et al., 2005a, 2005b). The major findings are
summarised below.
-

Auckland and Wellington have experienced the greatest change in

occupational structures, with an increase in more knowledge-intensive
occupations, as opposed to more rural areas, such as Northland, South
Waikato, Eastern Bay of Plenty, which over the period had lower growth in
knowledge-intensive occupations. Two factors noted were that these rural
regions tended to be dominated by declining industries and higher level of
Maori within their population and lower levels of educational attainment
(Baxendine et al., 2005).

National incomes in real terms were lower in 2001 than they were in 1986.
However, real incomes increased in the Auckland and Wellington regions
during this period. The gap between median incomes for Pakeha and Maori
also widened during this period, with the top Pakeha earners earning twothirds more than top Maori earners (Pool et al., 2005a).

Persons of Maori ethnicity had higher participation rates in occupations

requiring fewer or no qualifications than persons of Pakeha ethnicity (Pool et
al., 2006).

These findings reveal a number of issues. While the well educated are obviously
better off, labour market outcomes are also affected by ones location and ethnicity, as
well as what industry one is a part of and what type of related education and training
one pursues. This at least partially explains some of the disconnects observed in the
economic performance literature for New Zealand. If one goes back to the premise
that increasing the supply of skill would lead to improved economic performance and
competitive advantage. Improved economic performance has been realised which has
been attributed mainly to increased labour utilisation (and low levels of
unemployment). However, in terms of labour productivity, New Zealands
performance has been far below the OECD average; in fact it has even been argued
that with labour market deregulation, it was possibly easier for firms to increase
employment rather than improving productivity through capital investment and
innovation. In other words, while employment has increased, and there are increased
levels of educational attainment at the tertiary level, this did not translate to any
marked improvement in the competitive position of the economy.
70

This aligns to the findings of critics of human capital/VET approach to economic

development. In reality, the expected outcomes of such policies high-skill, highwage economy were too high and short-sighted, as it focussed on supply side of
skills, and not demand (Buchanan et al., 2001; Chappell et al., 2002; Dillingham,
2002; Finegold & Soskice, 1988; Lloyd, 2003, 2005; Payne, 2004).

According to Smelt, one of the underlying assumptions of the industry training

strategy was that international competitiveness in New Zealand would be enhanced by
the development of nationally recognised, portable industry training qualifications
(Smelt, 1995, p. 8). However, there was little evidence to support this premise.
Indeed, some commentators have pointed out that portable qualifications do not lead
to increased competitiveness, as these are easily duplicated, and that it is tacit
knowledge and skills that promote competitive advantage (Brown et al., 2008;
Strathdee, 2005). It is also further argued that the real acquisition of skills and the use
of skills to improve productivity come from workplace learning coupled with the
development of learning cultures within organisations, which has been discussed
elsewhere (Billett, 2000, 2004b; Hales, 2004). Also high-skill industries have not
proven to be the largest source of employment growth; the biggest growth in
employment have been in low-skill jobs, both in New Zealand and other OECD
countries; hence it is argued that while education and training are important, from a
policy perspective, it is critical to look at a more integrated policy approach to skills,
and to be more strategic in policy interventions and government spending in the
education sector (Buchanan et al, 2001, 2006; Wolf, 2002).

More importantly, the focus of evaluation on quantitative data provides no analysis of

how skills impact on the desired outcome productivity. It also represents a
policymakers perspective, or at least, it fulfils the need of policymakers to report on
outputs achieved. This type of data provides no understanding on how Industry
Training impacts the various stakeholders, and does not take their perspectives into
account; it assumes that this data meets the needs of all stakeholders involved,
something which a single performance management system is not likely to
accomplish (Wholey, 2001). The renewed emphasis on evidence-based policy in New

71

Zealand since 1999, has led to some changes in the evaluation of skills initiatives.
Some of these changes are:
-

The increase in the use of case studies. Initiatives such as the Workplace
Productivity Agenda and the Competitive Manufacturing Initiative have
sought to utilise the case study method to evaluate and report findings (Case
studies: workplace productivity in practice, 2004). Although much of this
work is geared at marketing the benefits of such initiatives, it is still an attempt
to examine the relationship between skills and other interventions in the
creation of outcomes such as increased productivity. Also it represents a
departure from using macro-level statistical data in evaluating the impact of
skills initiatives, to using the firm as the unit of analysis.

Increased use of sectoral approaches. A number of analytical reports have

been prepared for specific sectors, examining their environmental challenges
and opportunities and skills issues (Bryant, 2007; Liaise report: a forecast of
skill needs and training priorities for the New Zealand Hospitality Industry to
2010, 2007; Smart food, cool beverage: New Zealands future in the food and
beverage sector, 2006; Tourism and Hospitality workforce strategy, 2006).
While these have not all been evaluative in nature, they also are an indication
of the change towards looking at complex interaction between skills and their
sectoral context, rather than simply looking at quantitative data such as
number of trainees per sector.

ITOs profiles and investment plans. Since 2007, ITOs are required to develop
profiles and investment plans, outlining the specific outcomes they are
intending to contribute towards, and funding arrangements are to be linked to
their accomplishment (Investing in a plan, 2007). While this work is still at the
development stage, it represents an attempt to more comprehensively evaluate
the work done by ITOs beyond number of trainees.

Skills Action Plan. The 2008 Skills Action Plan itself leaves much to be
desired in terms of its evaluative component, which is to be determined in
future years (New Zealand skills strategy action plan, 2008, p. 32). However,
one of its appendix plans, the Literacy, Language and Numeracy Action Plan
2008-2012, does attempt to develop an evaluative component, with a mix of
qualitative and quantitative indicators. What is also interesting is the
recognition of different outcomes for different stakeholder groups (Literacy,
72

language and numeracy action plan 2008-2012, 2008, p. 18). This represents
a more inclusive approach to evaluation, in that the differing value of the
action plan to different stakeholders is recognised. However, further action on
this plan did not materalise as the election of the National-led government led
to changes in the Tertiary Education Strategy.

Since the election of the National-led government in 2008, two major studies have
been published by the Department of Labour and the Ministry of Education on
Industry Training (Crichton, 2009; Mahoney, 2010). The Department of Labour study
examined the effect of Industry Training on earnings, taking into account the
variables of sex, ethnicity, age and level of qualification completed. One of the major
findings of this study is that young white males were more likely to complete
qualifications at Level 4 and to experience an increase in wages upon completion.
Another major finding was that lower level qualifications offered very little wage
premium. The Ministry of Education study examined completion rates by level of
qualification, sex and ethnicity. What was interesting about this study was that it used
existing data, but looked at completions rather than participation. What was revealed
was that completion rates were overall quite low for Industry Training, and varied
widely across different sectors of the economy. It also showed that women and other
ethnic minorities experienced lower completion rates than white males.

These studies also point to the fact that, although Industry Training was meant to
increase social mobility for women and ethnic minorities, these inequities still persist.
The Ministry of Education study in particular also highlights the risk of data
manipulation in evaluation, and that quantitative data is not value-free.

No examination of the evaluation of Industry Training evaluation would be complete

without a brief look at the use of stories in evaluation. These are often referred to as
case studies or cases, and started to emerge in the 2001 evaluation of Industry
Training. Since then, they appear often as parts of various ITO annual reports or on
various websites promoting the successful use of Industry Training, such as the
Department of Labours Workplace Productivity website. The use of cases in
evaluation gained even more prominence with the completion of a comprehensive
evaluation of the work of the Agriculture ITO using Brinkerhoffs success case
73

methodology (Agriculture ITO annual report partners in productivity, 2008;

Brinkerhoff, 2005). At a glance, it may appear that this represents a trend towards the
use of qualitative, inclusive methods in conjunction with quantitative indicators in
Industry Training evaluation. However, it can be argued that this is not the case. The
use of the term case or case studies is suggestive that it has the same
methodological rigour as academic case studies or success case methodology, but
further reading of these cases does not reveal this. In fact, these have more in common
with vignettes rather than with cases. Additionally, of all the cases examined, only
one case portrayed a negative outcome; all the other portray Industry Training in a
favourable light. This is not to say the cases are false, but it could be argued that if
the cases are all successes, then there could be extreme selectivity in the choice of
cases in order to market the benefits of Industry Training, and that these cases are not
truly evaluative in nature.

Finally, the evaluation of the Industry Training strategy appears to fit the human
capital/VET policy logic to a large extent, particularly in the earlier years through to
around 2007. Increasing participation rates for both employers and trainees, including
women and ethnic minorities were viewed as indicators that the strategy was valuable
to stakeholders, perhaps based on a rational choice ideology. The latest studies by
Ministry of Education and Department of Labour could possibly represent the critical
HRD paradigm, which seeks to re-examine data available to determine whether the
expected outcomes are actually being realised (Crichton, 2009; Mahoney, 2010).
However both perspectives view the value of Industry Training as observable facts
that can more or less be quantified, whether in terms of numbers of trainees and
participating employers, or wages, or completion rates or sex or ethnicity or
progression to higher levels of qualifications. All these are important data; however
they are limited, in that they do not explain how these outcomes come about. Also
they do not examine the role and perspectives of the various stakeholders in the
creation of these outcomes.

74

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the methodology utilised for this research. The previous chapters
identified that VET evaluative research currently has two major gaps. First, VET
policy has suffered from a lack of empirical research to gain better understanding on
the determinants for VET engagement for its varied stakeholders, the value these
stakeholders derive, the processes that create or hinder value creation, and how this
value is assessed. Second, the paradigms underpinning VET evaluative research (as
identified in the Literature Review) have not been made explicit and have not been
subject to empirical research, to test their validity and applicability to an
understanding of research in the field. The methodology seeks to address these gaps,
both in terms of the research questions driving the research, as well as in the
methodological approach. The discussion commences with the research questions and
the rationale for the research is discussed, followed by the description of the research
design and analytical framework, and the limitations and boundaries of the research.

Research Questions and Rationale

The main research question is as follows:

Using New Zealands Industry Training Strategy as the research focus, how do
different stakeholders evaluate the impact of a VET policy?

Additionally the research also aims to answer the following subsidiary research
questions:
What value do stakeholders derive from VET engagement and how is that
value determined by them?
How is value created for different stakeholders from engagement in VET?

For the purposes of this research, VET policy was defined as upgrade training. Grubb
and Nortons definition of upgrade training is utilised, where VET policy is geared at
the provision of additional training to employed individuals, either to foster their
career advancement or to provide support in the face of technological and
organisational changes, which impacts their jobs (Grubb & Ryan, 1999, p. 10). This

75

choice of definition was driven by two concerns. Firstly, the Industry Training
Strategy can largely be defined as a VET policy focused on upgrade training for
persons in employment. Secondly, as noted in the literature review, it is critical to
define the various types of VET policies, as this has implications for the approaches
to policy evaluation.

A qualitative approach guides the research design, mainly owing to the fact that it was
more suited to answering the research questions which are exploratory in nature,
examining not only the what of Industry Training, but the how. To an extent, the
research philosophy is informed by Hanbergers (2001) characterisation of postpositivist research (and specifically post-positivist policy evaluation). This view
rejects rational positivist assumptions, that there is one truth that can be arrived at
using scientific methodology (Hanberger, 2001, p. 14). Post-positivists instead adopt a
relativistic epistemological paradigm that asserts that there are multiple ways of
understanding the world depending on ones perspective, and that there is no one
valid form of knowledge (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Hanberger, 2001).

The Industry Training Strategy as a government training initiative and public policy
gets implemented and is experienced differently by its various stakeholders. The
strategy therefore has multiple realities, and there are multiple perspectives on how
the strategy creates, or does not create value for its stakeholders. As a result, multiple
understandings exist among stakeholders on how that value gets created. In other
words, to use the policy evaluation jargon, there are, in reality, different logic models
and programme theories at work. The present disquiet in the New Zealand context
with its skills strategy is, in part a recognition that something is amiss with the current
skills development strategies, as the desired outcomes of higher productivity, and
higher wages have by and large eluded the nation (Harvey & Harris, 2008; New
Zealand Skills Strategy Discussion Paper, 2008; Working smarter: driving
productivity through skills, 2008). I posit that, at the heart of this disconnect is a faulty
programme logic and a lack of understanding and consensus on what outcomes are
desired (in others words, what is value) and how those are to be achieved. This is
critical as within the public policy context, what is perceived as being of value, gets
evaluated, and what gets evaluated gets incentivized. Using the example of Industry
Training, if what is seen as valuable is increasing the number of trainees and unit
76

standards completed, then that is what is assessed, as is evidenced in numerous

performance reports covering Industry Training (Industry Training 2005, 2005;
Industry Training and Modern Apprenticeships statistics as at 30 September 2006,
2007). As a consequence, Industry Training funding is directly linked to the number
of trainees and completion rates. Drawing on workplace learning and Critical HRD
theories (which have already been discussed), I argue that the value of Industry
Training can be better understood through the perspectives of its stakeholders, and
that it cannot be assumed that all stakeholders get the same value from the strategy.
Also the process of value creation for different stakeholders can only be understood
within their unique context, and is not fully explained by quantitative methods.

However, this research, while accepting the possibility of differing viewpoints among
stakeholders, leans towards an interpretive constructionist position that is
concerned with the lens through which people view events, the common
expectations and meanings through which people interpret what they see and what
happens to them. (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 28) These, if passed on from one
generation to another, then form a culture. The research design proposes that groups
of like stakeholders of Industry Training can be viewed as operating within a
particular cultural arena, such as workplace, an ITO or the policy sphere.
Additionally, the space in the Industry Training sector occupied by the particular
stakeholder group can be seen as a unique cultural space, with its own shared
meanings and understandings of Industry Training, and its unique value. Additionally,
the notion of truth differing from individual to individual becomes problematic when
conducting research aimed at better policy solutions. Further this research design
posits there is an assumption of shared meaning in one paradigm of VET, and another
assumption of opposing meaning. However no research has explored these meanings
to determine the extent to which they differ, or are shared or how these meanings
become created. (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).

This research also takes a hypothetico-deductivist approach, as defined by Wengraf

(2001) whereby the body of prior theory on VET and its related fields is used to
generate a particular hypothesis that is to be tested through the collection, and analysis
of relevant facts. In the case of this research, this body of prior theory has been

77

encapsulated into two paradigms of VET logic, which then provide the lens through
which the data collected is analysed.

Research Design

The research design is best described as a multiple stakeholder investigation through

the use of in-depth interviews and secondary data sources, and a comparative
programme logic/paradigm analytical framework developed from the literature. It is
designed to critically compare the perspectives of different stakeholders on the
evaluation of the Industry Training strategy. Being exploratory in nature, there is a
preference for gaining an in-depth understanding of the perspectives of the selected
research subjects, rather than seeking to gather data to make broad generalisations
(Gerring, 2007). In keeping with the central tenets of qualitative research, my research
gives preference to multiple data sources respondents representing different
stakeholders and supportive secondary data/documentary evidence that they can
provide, which may be either qualitative or quantitative in nature (Denzin & Lincoln,
2005, p. 3).

In line with the overarching research questions, the research is designed to collect and
analyse the perspectives of different stakeholders of the Industry Training Strategy.
Stakeholders are defined as groups that directly affect, or are affected by Industry
Training through their engagement with it. From the literature related to Industry
Training, three categories of stakeholders are identified: i) policy makers and industry
interest groups; ii) employers/managers from selected organisations; and iii) trainees
from selected organisations. In each of these categories, the stakeholders targeted by
this research are discussed below.

Policy Makers and Industry Interest Groups -

These groups either have direct responsibility, or have significant influence and stakes
in Industry Training, either at a national or sectoral level, or represent significant
interests. They are as follows:

78

Tertiary

Education

Commission

overall

responsibility

for

leading

the

implementation of New Zealands Tertiary Education Strategy, of which Industry

Training is a subset.

Department of Labour - among its responsibilities are the implementation of active

labour market policies and the conduct of research on skills shortages and needs in
order to inform policy action.

New Zealand Qualifications Authority - responsibility for establishing and

maintaining

the

qualifications

framework

underpinning

Industry

Training

qualifications, as well as for quality assurance.

Industry Training Federation - the umbrella organisation representing industry

training organisations, which has a vested interest in evaluation of the impact of
industry training, and which seeks to influence government policy as it relates to
industry training

Industry Training Organisations - responsibility for organising, developing, assessing

and quality assuring Industry Training for the industries they represent. For the
purposes of my research, focus was placed on industry training organisations that
represented the sectors to be covered by the research tourism and state sectors.
New Zealand Council of Trade Unions body representing affiliated trade unions and
the workers they represent, and member of the Skill New Zealand group with lead
responsibility for the conceptualisation of the Skills Strategy, and which has an
interest in the skill development of its members.
Business New Zealand - body representing their affiliated employers associations,
and a key partner in the Skills Strategy.

Tourism Industry Association of New Zealand - body representing tourism

organisations, and key stakeholder in the development and implementation of the
tourism skills strategy and tourism policy generally.

79

State Services Commission - lead responsibility to provide advice on the public

management system, including human resource policies.

Ministry of Tourism - responsibility for policy for the tourism sector.

Traditionally, policymakers and industry interest groups have been highly influential
in shaping the Industry Training Strategy. How they think about and evaluate skills
has a great deal on influence on other stakeholders and Strategys implementation
(Salaman et al, 2005, p. 5).

Case Studies of selected organisations

For analytical purposes, two categories of stakeholders were identified as representing

end users of Industry Training with work organisations employers/managers and
trainees.
Four case study sites were identified two state sector organisations and two tourism
organisations. Information regarding employers/managers and trainees were collected
at these sites. The case study methodology was considered ideal for the collection and
analysis of information regarding these stakeholder groups, as the workplace (as was
stated earlier) is regarded in this research as a unique cultural site within which
Industry Training takes place. These case studies allow for in-depth exploration of the
inter-relationships between stakeholders, and their work setting in the VET
engagement process, as well as allow for corroboration of findings (Yin, 2003).

The organisations examined were drawn from the state and tourism sectors which
engage in Industry Training. These sectors are of interest to me as, the public sector is
where I have worked, and will work upon my return to Jamaica. The tourism sector is
a very important and large sector both in New Zealand and in Jamaica. Additionally, I
believe the sectors would possibly offer an interesting contrast of the Industry training
experience, with the state sector representing a larger, more formal work organisation
structure, as opposed to firms within the tourism sector, which have a tendency to be
smaller, more flexibly organised, and privately owned. These sectors were also
chosen as they are a part of the wider service sector. There is a concentration in the
80

literature on skills in the manufacturing sector. However, the service sector is the
largest segment of the New Zealand and the world economy, and is deserving of
additional research. While this is not intended to make the sample organisations
representative of the population of tourism and state sector organisations, variation in
organisational size was critical in order to observe any variations in Industry Training
implementation.

Employers/Managers

Employers and managers, including Human Resource managers were identified as a

stakeholder group that is an end user of Industry Training, and also has decision
making responsibility in relation to the engagement in and facilitation of Industry
Training. This stakeholder group represents managerial perspectives on Industry
Training.

Trainees -

Trainees from the organisations identified represent the other critical end-user of
Industry Training, as they agree to, pursue and utilise Industry Training qualifications.

Data Collection

The data collection process commenced with the literature review from which the
stakeholder groups were identified. It then proceeded with the collection of data from
policy makers and industry interest groups, which was then consolidated and
analysed. This analysis guided the collection of data from employers/managers and
trainees in the selected organisations. The data collection process was approved by the
Human Ethics Committee of the Victoria University of Wellington.

In-depth, face to face, one on one interviews were conducted with each interviewee
using a core set of key questions covering their rationale for Industry Training
engagement, the value derived from this engagement and how this was evaluated by
them. These interviews are best described as being both topical and responsive, in that
the research issue in this case Industry Training, is highly visible, therefore
81

interviews were conducted with respondents who were most likely to answer the
questions; the goal from these interviews and research design was to gain depth of
understanding, rather than quantifying data results (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). A research
question map was carefully designed to ensure that question guides were prepared for
each stakeholder group respondent, and that the questions aligned directly to
responding to the main research questions. These question guides were then
consistently used for each interview and the data captured under each
question/heading. This process greatly assisted in the codification on the data, which
will be discussed under the Data Analysis heading. Appendix A provides additional
details on the questions used. Additionally, probing questions were also used during
the conduct of interviews in order to seek clarification and additional data. The
research design and data sources were expected to provide respondent triangulation,
as well as ensuring the representation of multiple stakeholders. This is important
especially for the multiple stakeholder approach in VET policy research, in order to
understand their views and experiences, and how these shape their engagement with
and valuing of Industry Training (Salaman et al., 2005).

Interviews with policymakers and industry interest groups were conducted first. This
assisted in setting the context for undertaking the interviews within the selected
organisations, and increased the chances of coverage of all the pertinent research
issues. Interview participants were identified using two methods internet searches
for relevant contact persons within the organisations listed above, and snowballing
technique, where participants were able to recommend other possible interview
candidates. The latter was used more extensively at the user organisational level, as
participants had to be accessed through a main contact person within the organisation.

Table 4.1 below outlines the research framework that guided the data collection, as
well as the number and types of interviewees.

82

Table 4.1 Numbers of Interviewees and Stakeholder Groups Represented

STAKEHOLDER GROUP
Policy

makers/Industry

NUMBER OF INTERVIEWEES
Interest 16

Groups
- Tertiary Education Commission

- Department of Labour

- New Zealand Qualifications Authority

- Industry Training Federation

- Business New Zealand

- Hospitality Standards Institute

- Aviation, Travel, Tourism ITO

Learning State (Public Sector ITO)

- New Zealand Council of Trade Unions

- Tourism Industry Association of New 1

Zealand
- State Services Commission

- Ministry of Tourism

Employer/Managers

(including

HR 16

managers)
Trainees

18

TOTAL

50

In the case of policymakers and industry interest groups, while a list of these
participating organisations is included, opinions were not attributed to individuals nor
specific organisations. Instead the analysis makes attributions to specific stakeholder
groups, for example, policymakers, industry training organisations.

In line with ethical requirements, for organisations from the tourism and state sectors,
information provided by participants was not disclosed to others. Additionally,
opinions are only attributed to classes of participants, for example, trainees,
managers/employers, and not to individuals or individual organisations. Also,
83

organisational anonymity is maintained to protect the organisations. For this reason,

copies of secondary data when provided is only referenced, but not included in the
findings. Some sections of quotations used in the analysis chapters were deleted in
order to maintain interviewee anonymity.

Secondary Data

Where available, secondary data such as evaluation reports, business reports,

documents associated with Industry Training administration (description of courses,
training agreements, training assessments) were examined. The aim was to establish
chains of evidence to support information provided in interviews at the case study
sites, and to ensure construct validity through multiple sources of evidence.

Data Security

All interviews were transcribed, and transcription notes and summaries of interview
results stored in a secured locker in my office for the period stipulated under the
Universitys ethical guidelines.

Data Analysis

A comparative approach was used to analyse the data collected. There were two
layers of comparative analysis comparison among the three stakeholder groups
identified and comparison of stakeholders perspectives against the two paradigms
identified in the analytical framework.
The first layer was to compare stakeholders views. The aim was to identify
similarities and differences among stakeholders perspectives, and to address one of
the gaps identified in the literature where VET evaluation is lacking in its
consideration of a multiple stakeholder approach.
The second layer was to compare stakeholders views through the lens of the
analytical frameworks identified and developed from the literature. As discussed
previously, within the literature there are two broad and seemingly competing and
84

opposing programme theories on the creation of value from public investments in

VET. For the purposes of this study, the first I have referred to as the Strategic
HRD/VET logic. The logic here is that the state invests in skills/VET, which then
leads to the development of nationally recognised qualifications. These lead to
recognisable and valuable skills. Employers and employees then willingly participate
in VET, and having participated and acquired skills, these are then used strategically
within the work organisation, and this leads to a range of outcomes increased
productivity, wages effects, social mobility etc.

The assumptions that underpin this logic are that VET outcomes are mutually
beneficial to all involved, they are value-free and are largely observable facts that can
be determined by quantitative methods and data.

The second programme theory I have referred to as the Critical HRD/Stakeholder

logic. Here, there is a critique of the taken for granted assumptions of the Strategic
HRD/VET logic, and it tends to focus not so much on how things work, but on why
things are not working as they should. The common thought here that can be applied
to VET policy evaluation is that outcomes are value-laden and context-specific, and
are only mutually beneficial to all stakeholders through struggle and negotiation. It is
however a theoretical perspective that has not been empirically tested.
This framework then became a point of reference for analysing interviewees
responses. The underlying question here was to what extent did responses reflect
either of the programme theories within the framework, or did a different logic
emerge from the data. The analytical framework is depicted below in Table 4.2.

85

TABLE 4.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

Strategic HRD/VET logic Critical HRD/
Stakeholder logic
Orientation
Performance/Instrumental Developmental
orientation; purports to be orientation; criticises VET
pluralist in outlook
policy as being unitarist in
outlook
Attention to Pedagogical
Lack of explicit attention; Attention to learners
Issues
assumption of learner
needs critical to learning
needs being met
and application
Roles of Stakeholders
Assumes stakeholders
Questions whether
role definitions are clear,
stakeholders role
performed consistently,
definitions are always
and are complementary,
complementary, and
leading to shared outcomes carried out consistently.
for all. Employers
These roles may even be
engagement is seen as a
competing, to the
signal for the provision of detriment of some
workplace support for
stakeholders, especially
VET, including assessment trainees.
services etc.
Factors

Funding

Assumes that funding

incentivises stakeholder
engagement in ways that
produces mutually
beneficial outcomes

Questions whether funding

incentivises perverse
behaviour to the detriment
of beneficial outcomes

Evaluation

Preference for quantitative

performance indicators to
evaluate. Typical
indicators are completion
rates, number of trainees
by age, sex and race
Assumes outcomes are
mutually beneficial for all
stakeholders. Typical
shared outcomes are skills,
portability of skills, higher
wages and productivity,
increased socio-economic
equity for disadvantaged
groups

Preference for qualitative

data to evaluate

Outcomes

Challenges the
assumptions of mutually
beneficial outcomes for all
stakeholders.

The research design utilised the programme logic model as a key data analysis tool.
Programme theory is defined as the underlying assumptions about how a programme
will work to accomplish the outcomes intended (Bickman, 2000; Owen, 1998). A
86

logic model is a diagrammatic representation of a programme theory (Cooksky et al.,

2001; Julian et al., 1995; Kaplan & Garrett, 2005). Programme theory or logic was
developed by Suchman in late 1960s, and further developed by Joseph Wholey,
Michael Patton, and more recently Funnell in the Australasian context and the
Kellogg foundation in the USA, among others (Funnell, 2000; Patton, 2002b;
Suchman, 1967; Wholey, 1987). It was developed as a way of outlining the events or
interventions within a public policy programme that would produce a certain
outcome or sequence of outcomes (Alkin, 2004; Baehler, 2003; Logic Model
development guide, 2004; Yin, 2003, p. 127). It has also been utilised for evaluation
purposes, where programme theory serves a more descriptive function, which is to
uncover how the programme actually works in reality (Rogers, 2000). Programme
theory and logic models have gained increasing popularity among public service
managers in New Zealand and elsewhere and within the NGO sector as a way of
meeting the demand for increased levels of accountability and performance (Logic
model for the evaluation of the 10-year strategic plan for Early Childhood Education:
pathways to the future, 2003).

The use of programme theory, and theory-driven evaluations were developed in part
as an alternative to the weaknesses of quantitative, positivist policy evaluations
(House, 2001). According to House, the utilisation of grand social theories as a basis
for evaluations failed, as there were no social theories that seemed to have the
explanatory power or credibility of physical theories (House, 2001, p. 311). The
alternative to construct a model or programme theory on which to base evaluative
studies provides the advantage of setting the parameters for data search, of testing
rival explanation and clearer appreciation of social causation (House, 2001).

Other advantages of programme theory/logic models are that as policy development

approach, it can facilitate collaboration among stakeholders, strengthen the policy
process by brining assumptions to the fore for explication and critique, and it allows
for ease of communication about what a policy is about. As a policy evaluation tool, it
has the advantage of defining the policy outcomes, and impacts against which the
policy can then be evaluated.

87

Some of these very advantages can pose a challenge for this particular research
design. Firstly, logic models can be criticised as taking a positivist approach to policy
evaluation, in that it is a statement of causal effect, although depending on the
complexity of the model used, complex causality can be captured. Secondly, in its
attempt to achieve ease of communication, a logic model can run the risk of oversimplification of a policy (Gregory, 2004). Thirdly, while its development is
potentially inclusive, there is a tendency for programme theory/logic model to
overlook equity issues, which may seem to run counter to the inclusive approach that
it hoped for in this research design (Baehler, 2002).

For this research, it is argued that different stakeholders of the Industry Training
Strategy may engage in Industry Training operating with differing programme
theories, and assumptions, and that could in part explain the disconnect between the
grand policy aims of a high skill, high wage, highly productive society and the reality.
The aim of the research then would be unearth these theories and assumptions using
logic models, and to critically compare the differences and similarities among
stakeholder groups. The policy process is constantly intersected by the often
competing value systems of its stakeholders, and this has to be borne in mind,
particularly as it relates to the evaluation process. The analogy used by Fischer of
policy as a well crafted argument is useful, in that good policy has to take account of
contending positions, contentious issues and most importantly the fact that
assumptions, and evidence of policy have both strengths and limitations (Fischer,
2007). The question then arises, if policy is a crafted argument, whose voice is it; is it
possible for the policy process to be hijacked by some stakeholders wielding more
political power, to the detriment and exclusion of others? A well crafted policy
argument, including policy evaluation, then has to take into account the different
voices (and by extension values and concerns) of its stakeholders, for the purposes of
fostering democracy as well as greater levels of policy understanding. One of the
strengths of this data analysis methodology is that it provides a useful construct to
interrogate the data collected, and to communicate the research findings. It also
provides a systematic way for delineating who is saying what and in what context
(Barbour, 2008, p. 216). The final analysis then, represents a syntheses of
understandings that come about by combining different individuals and stakeholders
detailed reports of their experiences with Industry Training (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
88

There are two potential drawbacks with this methodology. The first is that the analysis
runs the risk of being inundated by a multiplicity of logic models, which makes data
analysis intractable (Donaldson & Gooler, 2003; Torvatn, 1999). To minimise this
risk, thematic analysis was used as a complementary data analysis tool. This involves
identifying themes or patterns within the data. Drawing on the guidance provided by
Barbour (2008), this entails identifying patterning in (the) data and doing some
counting while stopping short of making statistical inferences (Barbour, 2008, p.
217).

The second potential drawback is concerned with the unearthing of the assumptions
that underpin the programme theory of the different stakeholders, the risk being how
to limit researcher bias, and not to presume participants assumptions. The challenge
however, is that research participants may not always be aware of the assumptions
that underpin their perspective, and may not be able to articulate these with clarity. In
order to minimise researcher bias, it is critical to ask a lot of probing questions, to
adequately capture participants perspectives, while ensuring that questions are not
asked in such a way as to cast a judgement on respondents actions or motives
(Patton, 2002a). Transcripts or summaries of the interviews were also provided to
participants, to give them the opportunity to state whether their views were
sufficiently captured.

As the question guides were used consistently for all interviews, these provided
natural categories for codification of the interview and secondary data. From the
analysis under the different codes, themes emerged and then developed, both through
the lens of stakeholder group responses, and the comparative paradigms. These data
were then synthesised into global themes or the revised logic that emerged from the
data (Attride-Stirling, 2001).

Limitations

A number of access challenges led to possible limitations in the research, including:

the small number of cases studied; participant numbers; and variation in the
availability of secondary data.
89

The original research design was to examine seven case studies sites representing
different types of state sector and tourism organisations. In the case of the state sector,
the Wilson matrix for state sector organisations was used as a typology of state
organisations, the four categories being production, procedural, craft and coping
organisations (Gregory, 1995). In the case of tourism organisations, the typology of
tourism businesses used in the Tourism and Hospitality Workforce Strategy was
adopted, that is accommodation, attractions and activities (Tourism and Hospitality
workforce strategy, 2006). The intention was to provide a point of comparative
analysis among different types of state sector and tourism organisations. Only four
case studies sites were eventually explored in this research. The main reason for this
was the tremendous challenges faced in locating organisations which were both
willing to participate in the research, and who utilised Industry Training across all or a
wide range of their employees.

Another research challenge was accessing the targeted number of research

participants at the case studies sites, particularly managers/supervisors and trainees.
This was again partially due to the reduction in case sites, as well as difficulty getting
respondent

cooperation.

total

of

fifty

interviews

with

trainees

and

managers/supervisors were targeted; in the end a total of thirty-five interviews were

conducted with these respondent groups.

The third limitation was the lack of secondary data for two of the case study sites.
Originally, the aim was to examine secondary data for all case study sites, as a source
of corroboration for data from interviews. However, due to time constraints and
difficulties in accessing participant organisation, a decision had to be taken to use
these organisations. This limitation was not considered detrimental to the data
collection and analysis process on two counts. First, interviews conducted at the level
of policymakers and industry groups revealed that there were variations among
workplaces in terms of their level of sophistication in VET engagement, with related
training practices being managed with different degrees of formalisation. Therefore,
the absence of secondary data is seen as a reflection of that reality. Secondly, the use
of different interview sources provided adequate levels of data corroboration.

90

Research Outcomes

This research contributes to both practical as well as academic knowledge. In terms of

academic contribution, it adds to the field of Critical HRD by expanding its
application to the public policy arena, as it relates to skills initiatives. The research
also contributes to the policy evaluation literature. Specifically it explores the
expanded use of programme theory through the inclusion of multiple stakeholders
perspectives and theories, and the exploration of the interplay among stakeholders in
the evaluation of the Industry Training Strategy. The final product is a critical analysis
of the connections between programme theory and outcomes within and among
stakeholder groups. A theory of how skills policies create value and are evaluated
from a multiple stakeholder perspective is a final outcome that can then be tested
through future empirical research. This fills in part the gap in evaluative research on
skills, which largely ignores stakeholders perspectives, especially at the
organisational level, and within the New Zealand context. This makes this research
unique as previous investigations of comparative stakeholder perspectives have been
confined to employers and employees. This research also helps fill the gap in
evaluative

research

on

nationally

recognised

workplace

training.

The

recommendations inform future direction on a more effective evaluation framework

for the Industry Training Strategy, and skills policies generally.

91

CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS FINDINGS FROM POLICYMAKERS

AND INDUSTRY INTEREST GROUPS

In this chapter, the findings from the interviews with respondents representing
policymakers and industry interest groups (as outlined earlier in Table 4.1) will be
discussed and analysed. The interviews for this group of respondents totalled 16 and
are numbered respondent 1 to 16 for confidentiality purposes.

The findings are categorised under the various research questions starting with the
subsidiary questions and ending with main research question. Additionally, the
analysis exposed a number of recurring themes emerging from the data, which are
discussed against the background of the comparative analytical framework, along
with the programme theories revealed by the data.
What value do employers and trainees derive from this engagement and how is
that value determined by them?
Value for whom?
For these respondents, their definitions of the value of Industry Training were shaped
by their keen awareness of its impact on a range of stakeholders. While all the
interview participants generally identified the same set of stakeholders trainees,
employers, industry, government, society, there were marked differences in how these
recipients were perceived. In some instances, it was clear that there was a hierarchy of
clients, which was defined by the power the recipient was perceived to have. On one
hand, employers were identified as being the principal recipients of Industry Training,
as exemplified in the following comments:
Respondent 15
It has to be the employers; they are our key. Without them, it doesnt matter.
There could be all the learners stacked up in the world but without the
employers buying into Industry Training, those opportunities arent there for
learners.
Respondent 14
And what happened was ITOs were set up as employer organisations. The
old concept which had been embedded in vocational education for at least 100
92

years, of unions being full, formal participants in the vocational education

system, that went overnight.
Respondent 11
The organisation. So even if an individual approaches us, we ask them to
work through the organisation
This is reflective of a unitarist viewpoint, as well as the practical and pragmatic
concerns of implementing Industry Training, particularly from the perspective of an
ITO (Lamm & Rasmussen, 2008). Although Industry Training only takes place when
there is a signed agreement among an ITO, the trainee and the employer, the employer
is the only party that is required to make a financial contribution to the cost of the
training. Some respondents further pointed out that especially for SMEs, that cost can
be quite substantial. Therefore, how employers value Industry Training can become
more relevant than the benefits to other stakeholders, particularly from the perspective
of an ITO which depend to a large extent on the cooperation of employers for their
existence.

Other respondents however had a more pluralist view, and tended to shy away from
identifying any one principal client for Industry Training, as exemplified in the
following quotations:

Respondent 6
I think the employers are, with the trainees a close second. Because the
training agreement is signed between the employer and the trainee, and it
becomes a part of the employment agreement. So without the employer
nothing happens, but without the employee nothing happens either.
Respondent 10
I dont think that we would pick a winner between the two of them. I mean
the whole process should be student-centred That said, we want equally to
meet the needs of industry.
Respondent 9
I think the client is industry, which is both employers, and firms and
employees.

93

Respondent 1
Another huge shift I think has been prompted by the shift in tertiary
education in New Zealand from demand-led which went right through the
80s, to now one that is supposed to be based on stakeholders needs. On
needs of the industry, needs of the learner and of the community.
There was a definitive pattern in the type of stakeholders who tended to have a
unitarist versus a pluralistic client perspective. Interview participants who were closer
to the policy centre all expressed a pluralistic client perspective, while the further
from the policy centre the participant was, the greater the tendency to lean towards a
more unitarist perspective. This is not unexpected as persons at the policy level, being
closer to the seat of government would be expected to reflect the concerns of the
wider electorate. It has been argued though that in the first decade of Industry
Training, despite the calls for greater equity of access to training for minorities and
under-represented workers in sectors with little or no training, that employers were
considered by government as the principal client. Some commentators argued that it
was an even more narrow definition of employers, as large companies represented in
the Business Round Table group who were the main drivers and influence on Industry
Training and on government policies at the time (Crocombe et al., 1991; Elkin, 1998;
Smelt, 1995). So the change to a more pluralistic client view expressed by some
interviewees mirrors the view reflected in the policy literature, with the change to a
Labour-led government in 1999, and an adoption of more pro-worker policies, for
example the repeal of the Employment Contracts Act and the passing of the
Employment Relations Act, and the introduction of what has been termed Third
Way policies, and a shying away from strictly market-led government philosophy (L.
Evans et al., 1996; Lunt et al, 2003).

This change over time in government philosophy, it appears, has led to the word
industry having multiple meanings among stakeholders. From the interviews, there
was a tendency for those taking the more unitarist view to define it as employers,
while those with a more pluralistic client perspective tended to have a broader
definition. But even then, there was no consistent definition, an inconsistency that
appears in the policy literature although not specifically acknowledged. So on one
end, industry is defined as employers. At the other end of the spectrum, after
analysing the various interview comments as well as the policy literature, I believe
94

industry is a specific value chain bounded by the production of a common set of

goods and services which includes customers, employers, managers, taxpayers,
government etc but whose boundaries are quite permeable.

The variations in definitions of who is considered the principal client, and who or
what is industry have implications for the evaluation of Industry Training. These
variations reveal that definition of value is potentially both political and subjective, as
it is shaped by who is seen as having the decision-making power at the particular
points of engagement. What is clear also is that the tension in the literature as
exemplified in the comparative analytical framework reflects tensions in reality in the
VET implementation process among these stakeholders. That tension is expressed
through the varying orientations of Industry Training, whether it is unitarist or
pluralist in outlook. If in reality, Industry Training is fundamentally unitarist, given
the power that employers exercise over the engagement process, this may translate
into Industry Training being more instrumental in nature to the neglect of more
developmental concerns, such as employability and development of trainees, and a
focus on their pedagogical needs, a concern that thinkers of the Critical HRD
persuasion argue. The role of employers and how they execute that role can therefore
impede the VET engagement process for other stakeholders, for example employer
insistence on certain types of training, which may not result in trainees being
adequately skilled to compete in the wider labour market, and ITO acquiescing to
these demands against better judgements. On the other hand, there is a competing
view among some of these stakeholders to strive towards making Industry Training
pluralist in its outlook, and to provide balance to all stakeholders needs. What then
emerges here is not a clear cut preference for one paradigm over another. The data
presents a reality that is fraught with tensions between pluralist and unitarist concerns,
and which is shaped by the power bases of the different stakeholders.

The values that were identified by respondents were a) a variety of quantitative

outcomes, b) skills/ skill utilisation, c) career progression/skill recognition/portability,
and d) increased access/equity/learners self worth.

95

a) Quantitative Outcomes
Not surprisingly, numerical performance indicators (PIs) were one of the most
commonly identified value among interviewees. However, quite often, unlike the
policy literature, interviewees varied in their perspective on the use of PIs. On one
hand, there were those respondents who viewed their numbers as an indicator of
success, as exemplified in the following statements:
Respondent 13
We are looking at KPIs around assisting some emerging demographic groups
Maori, Pacific Island, women and we look at how their population within
their trainee populations compares with the population that we have from the
census for the industries within their coverageSo our figures really speak for
themselves; were sitting at the moment at about 10,000 trainees way over
budget in terms of the STMs that we are funded on. You understand how we
are funded? We over-achieve significantly; I think we are one of the largest
over-achievers.
Respondent 9
But our numbers are still pretty high, so we must be doing something right,
and because of the requirement for the cash contribution, so employers always
have to put some money in, so again there has to be a sense of valuing going
on.

Respondent 15
We are cheap compared to polytechs and PTEs. We are cheap return on
investment; so youve got 10,000 trainees just in hospitality, and how many
does the local polytechnic have?
Respondent 11
We want to actually increase our trainees numbers because it looks good for,
for TEC, and also for the industry.
This is not surprising and is reflective of the requirements of the funding
arrangements and performance reporting mechanisms that are currently in place for
the monitoring of the Industry Training system (TEC, 2005). The performance
reporting system utilises a variety of quantitative indicators as proxies for the desired
outcomes of the system. These indicators are hinged on participation, completion and
progression rates. The argument presented was that increasing levels of participation
by trainees and employers, as well as completion were proxies for valuing on the part
96

of trainees and employers. Increasing participation by disadvantaged groups, such as

Maori and women, as well as increasing learning progression along the National
Qualifications Framework was viewed as proxies for socio-economic progress. This is
based on the assumption that increased learning and participation should result in
increase wages, reduced unemployment and employment mobility. This is an example
of a bounded rationality evaluation model, where perfect information is not deemed
possible, so HR metrics are developed as they are believed to approximate some
valued output or outcome. (Holton & Naquin, 2005, p. 265). The performance
reporting system is reflective of the Strategic HRD/VET policy logic in that these
quantitative indicators are meant to indicate the collective, pluralist value of Industry
Training to a wide range of stakeholders minorities, trainees, employers (Lamm &
Rasmussen, 2008). This again is not surprising as these indicators are set at the policy
level, where the political concerns would be to seek out collective interests as far as is
possible, or at least be seen to be doing so. But the quotations also indicate the
possibility of specific interest groups or unitarists agenda, that are encapsulated in
these numerical indicators. There appears to be a value of credibility for various
stakeholders that is gained from increasing performance along these quantitative
indicators because it looks good. This value of credibility that is gained from
the numbers is then translated into a political bargaining chip used to advocate for and
justify governments Industry Training spend, whether it is to increase it, to
accommodate over-achieving ITOs or to gain increased parity in funding between
the ITO and polytechnics sectors. This then supports the Critical/stakeholder
programme logic that evaluation is not a value-free process, and that it is political
process.
The value-laden nature of quantitative evaluative data is perhaps more exemplified by
the responses that expressed caution and even hostile cynicism to the use, or perhaps
more appropriately, the misuse of quantitative data. The following quotations are an
indication of this perspective:
Respondent 3
I think the way the funding works is that there is a very heavy emphasis on
signing up trainees, and getting qualifications and credit completions. And the
question I would ask is: is that resulting in good quality.

97

Respondent 10
How do you evaluate this? How do you measure performance when you are
trying to drive behaviours and practices and productivity, and things that are
somewhat more intangible, and more difficult to measure than the number of
people enrolled or qualified, and both of those are important measures that we
have to keep measuring. But we have to find other ways of measuring
performance, and looking at a more rounded picture of the performance.
Respondent 1
When we did a large survey of what was available in the training space, and
there were literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of qualifications on
the books and God knows how many of them were actually functional and
running. But there was an absolute plethora of courses that were potentially
available, and 90% of them, nobody had any idea if they were effective, useful
or targeted or whatever. Just driven by EFTS funding and bums on seats. It
paid a private provider to pop up with another course, you know. In terms of
effectiveness and evaluation and was this actually achieving anything for the
productivity of the industry nobody had any idea.
Respondent 2
____ ITO was probably concentrating on things like ______ and ______ and
that sort of thing because that was a steady flow of apprentices who were
going through the levels and had good completion rates. ______, where is the
money in that? So they had no knowledge, no effort, no interest.

Respondent 4
I know of several cases where an ITO or provider will just call up their HR
friends and say Were running a course. How many trainees do you need?
Ok. Then they would just round up the trainees like cattle; no concern about
who needs it or anything. All that was important was meeting the target to get
the funding.

There are a number of issues that can be raised from these quotations. First is the ongoing challenge which is also reflected in the policy literature on the best way to
design funding incentives to drive behaviour, and how to avoid perverse incentive and
subsequently perverse outcomes. The term bums on seats was used repeatedly by
several of these respondents as a way is disparaging the over-emphasis on quantitative
indicators. The main argument of respondents here is that numerical indicators was
too limited in assessing performance of the Industry training system, and that the
attachment of funding to achievement of quantitative outcomes has led to the Industry
98

Training system producing valuable outcomes for those who are responsible for
getting the trainee numbers and qualifications development increased, but not quality
outcomes, a point that is reflected in the literature (Smelt, 1995; Wolf, 2002; Wolf et
al., 2006).

Second, the quotations emphasise the quantity versus quality debate that was raised
by many of the respondents, the essential argument being that the value of
quantitative outcomes seem to run counter to respondents notions of quality
outcomes. This notion of quality tied to the next value that was identified by
respondents skill utilisation.

b) Skills and Skills Utilisation

Skill utilisation was the outcome that was identified by all respondents as a major
outcome of the Industry Training system, and appeared to be the indication of the
quality and health of the system, as these quotations highlight:
Respondent 3
Youve got the qualifications, and the ITO goes along to you as a business
and says: Ive got this qualification that would suit you. And you say: Yep,
thats good. Ill get all my trainees signed up, and I can tick off yes Im
training. But thats based on the notion that the skills developed will be used
in the business and will add value.
Respondent 1
But the guts of it is, what Brinkerhoff said has made quite a shift to saying
instead of just developing the skills in isolation, you ought to involve
management at the beginning, relate it to a business plan, and then at the end
have good training we usually do that quite well, and then remove barriers to
the implementation of those skills that have been learnt into the business.
Respondent 6
There is absolute connection between the development of a high skill, high
wage, high productivity economy.
Respondent 7
So its about productivity, bottom-line, retention, and those are probably the
key things; thats whats important to them.
99

This aligns with the Strategic HRD/VET policy logic, and echoes the argument within
the VET policy and Industry Training literature on the link between skills and
productivity at the individual, firm and national levels (Grubb & Ryan, 1999; Harvey
& Harris, 2008). Despite the agreement on skill utilisation as an important value to be
derived from Industry Training, there were major differences among respondents on
the extent to which skill utilisation as a quality outcome was and should be achieved.
This is rooted in the differences between the unitarist and pluralist perspectives in
relation to Industry Training, and what emerges from the data are differences in
pedagogical perspectives and logic among interviewees about Industry Trainings
purposes, what causes it to be effective, and how funding arrangements therefore
ought to be designed or not designed in keeping with logic argument. Three different
pedagogical arguments have been identified in the data, and are outlined in Table 5.1,
and the perspectives expressed centre around four key issues VET outcomes in the
form of the kind of qualifications the system ought to produce, the nature of
assessment attached to qualifications, whether qualifications should be suited to
meeting long, medium or short term needs, and the critique of whether the funding
arrangements impede or facilitate the particular viewpoints.

100

TABLE 5.1 - Industry Interest Groups and Policymakers Perspectives of

Pedagogical Issues Affecting Industry Training
Pluralist multiPluralist TraineeUnitarist
client focus
Focus
Employer-Focus
Outcomes
Pedagogically
Pedagogically sound Fit for purpose
sound
Industry Industry
Training Industry Training
Training
qualifications have a qualifications
is
qualifications are a strong
theoretical defined by the
certain breadth and component which is needs
of
the
length but not too not best delivered on industry,
and
lengthy
the job
should
not
be
defined by length
or credits
Assessment
Pedagogically
Pedagogically sound Fit for purpose
sound
Industry
Training Industry Training
qualifications
qualifications should qualifications
should meet the not be only evidence- should
be
needs
of based and should evidence-based,
kinaesthetic
include
off
job and this is the best
learners who most assessment
within way to know that
likely have had more
traditional the learner can do
poor success in the educational institutions the job. Suitability
primary
and such as polytechnics
of
assessment
secondary
methods have to
education systems.
be determined by
Preference for on
cost-effectiveness
the job, evidence
and ease of use
based assessment
Perspective
Pedagogically
Pedagogically sound Fit for purpose
sound
Industry Industry
Training Industry Training
Training
qualifications with a qualifications will
qualifications
strong
theoretical meet the needs
provide
learners component
provide identified
by
and
the
wider learners and the wider employers, whether
labour market with labour market with short
term
or
skills
for
the skills for the medium otherwise
medium to long to long term, and not
term, and not just just the short term
the short term
Funding
Funding
is The funding and the Funding formula is
designed to ensure wider system is driven not designed to
that
Industry by
numbers
and meet these needs
Training
employers short term and ways
and
qualification meet interests, that turns out means have to be
these
minimum learners who are not devised to get
criteria
for necessarily competent. around them
pedagogical
soundness but are
shortened to enable
easier completion
101

At one end of the spectrum, there is the unitarist perspective, which characterises
Industry Trainings effectiveness as it being fit for purpose, the specific purpose
being meeting the needs of industry, industry being defined in this world view as
employers. Here, an Industry Training qualifications purpose is to equip with the
specific skills required at the time. The quotation below exemplifies this perspective.
Respondent 15
What is a qualification? Is a qualification 3 years at university, or is the
qualification a particular skill? When we talk to people about unit standards
and quals, we talk about a unit standard representing a skill as a qualification
in its own right. It is a record and evidence that someone can do a particular
skill I have the qualification in handling and maintaining knives, so I am
competent to use a knife now. People need to shift their idea about what a
qualification is. It doesnt need to be a 40 credit certificate with all these unit
standards that dont apply to the person in the workplace, and that they have
had to sit through and do, but they dont actually do in their job.
The evidence-based assessment model associated with Industry Training is seen as
ideal, and assessment methodology should be determined by ease of use and cost, thus
making on the job assessment preferential. Being fit for purpose means meeting
employers needs, whether short, medium or long term, and as such, persons holding
this view take exception to funding only being linked to qualifications meeting a
minimum number of credits. This is also an argument posited for not relying only on
completion rates as a key performance indicator, as part of a qualification may still be
useful in terms of meeting skills needs. What is deemed pertinent is the acquisition
and use of the skills needed, and not the acquisition of qualifications, as defined by
educationalists whose preference is for traditional, institution-based learning
solutions. This is certainly reflective of the human capital theory perspective, which
argues that employers are more likely to value training that is specific to their needs
(Becker, 1962).

The second perspective expressed is trainee centred, which questions whether

Industry Training has been as beneficial as it is purported to be. This is a proemployee, social justice concern, but this perspective is also rooted in the pedagogical
debate which appears to surround Industry Training. Some of the arguments here are
that Industry Training, by being so evidenced-based, has lost a great deal of the
102

theoretical component that was formerly included under the old Apprenticeship
system, where theoretical components were delivered off-job. Proponents of this
perspective argue that with more and more Industry Training being done entirely on
the job, trainees were being trained in a Stand by Nellie approach, and being
assessed in a checklist manner. The following quotations express these quality
concerns regarding Industry Training:
Respondent 14
Immediately we started to see vocational education as being enterprisespecific So theory went; educational elements of your training went, and
many employers were able to set up training packages, which were designed
to meet the companies short term needs. The long term planning and the
concept of training actually being vocational education disappeared with very
serious consequences.

Respondent 4
So yes, I turned the machine off properly; I isolated this switch, you know.
Understanding some of the important details of the theory of electrical motors
as to why it goes around in circles when you turn the switch; thats not there
And the discussions Ive had about quality of training, and people getting
qualifications and they clearly cant do it, and had all the answers in the back
of the book anyway.
They further argue that this has resulted in workers not really being sufficiently
skilled, and this has been a major factor leading to New Zealands poor labour
productivity performance. Here, industry is also defined as being employers, and this
is considered to be undesirable and an uneven distribution of power. The funding
arrangements, from this perspective, are seen as faulty, in that they encourage the
meeting of employers short term needs, such as Occupational Health and Safety
training, to the neglect of a broader educational grounding, to the detriment of the
trainees, and ultimately the wider economy. This reflects squarely the Critical
HRD/Stakeholder paradigm on several counts. It argues for a developmental approach
to VET, with a focus on ensuring the quality of learning and teaching. This viewpoint
however is underpinned by an understanding of the roles workplaces ought to play in
the use of skills, as it is the use of adequate skills in appropriate ways that will lead to
better economic performance. However, it is argued here, in keeping with the Critical
HRD/Stakeholder perspective that in reality, the roles of employers and managers in
103

Industry Training is often not carried out in keeping with appropriate quality
standards; further, given the power imbalance in the workplace, there is no
compulsion to adhere to such standards. This then results in inadequate attention to
pedagogical issues, and limited learning and application. Finally, in keeping with the
Critical HRD/Stakeholder paradigm, these respondents argue that the funding system
and the types of quantitative indicators utilised serve to perpetuate these systemic
weaknesses, whereby beneficial outcomes of Industry Training are only experienced
by a few stakeholders, but not the majority the trainees and the economy, making
the Industry Training system a unitarist one.

The third perspective is the pluralist one, which attempts to balance the needs of
trainees, employers and the wider labour market. The pedagogical perspective here is
that Industry Training must meet certain criteria in terms of number of unit standards,
in order to be considered educationally sound. However, they must also not be so
cumbersome as to not meet the needs of employers and of kinaesthetic learners, for
whom Industry Training is a second chance at success in formal education. The
following quotations reveal this perspective:
Respondent 1
So we wound up with very large qualifications, national qualifications. And
the people that were going into the workplace and learning in this area arent
academic; they are kinaesthetic learners; they are people who learn by doing,
have had poor success rates in formal education. And these large national
certificates were a real barrier to them.
Respondent 2
Weve got smaller, more focused qualifications. They in turn are able to be
broken down into limited credit programmes at the front end, and
supplementary credit programmes at the back end to give a group of
qualifications that are flexible.
When this balance is achieved, Industry Training will meet the needs not only of
learners, but of the labour market in the medium to long term, and not just the short
term needs. Funding therefore has to be designed to encourage this balance, and this is
the logic underpinning some of the performance indicators currently used, such as
completion of qualifications within a designated timeframe. This reflects the Strategic
HRD/VET logic in its attempt to accommodate and balance pluralist concerns. It
104

varies somewhat from this paradigm however in two respects. One is that mutually
beneficial outcomes for all stakeholders are not assumed to be natural outcomes of
Industry Training; instead mutuality has to be achieved through the crafting of
funding incentives to accommodate learner needs, and equity outcomes for
disadvantaged workers, for example. The second point of departure is the attention to
pedagogical concerns, which is assumed to exist under the paradigm. Instead,
attempts to address particular learner needs are made systemically through the
incentive structure to size qualifications into more manageable chunks. However, the
logic expressed here also contains the same pitfalls of the Strategic HRD/VET
paradigm. There is for example an absence of how shorted, more attainable
qualifications will translate into the broader socio-economic outcomes for VET. Also,
the role of employers and managers in accommodating and quality assuring VET
delivery and assessment is treated as a given in the value creation process for Industry
Training.

It is important to point out that although three different logic perspectives have been
discussed here, that in reality, these analytical categories do not appear as clear-cut as
the table may suggest, and in fact, some interviewees expressed over lapping
perspectives. One common concern across all perspectives is with the multiplicity of
Industry Training qualifications that now exist. All interviewees expressed the view
that this has led to a great deal of confusion within the system for all stakeholders,
who commonly appear to be at a loss as to how to make sense of them all, a confusion
summed up by the following statement:
Respondent 8
Something along the lines of the rationalisation of the qualifications within
the tourism sector, some of the research indicating that there is 600 odd
qualifications out there, and just confusion and lack of understanding as to
what they all mean.
It appears then that the benefits from having national qualifications as signals of skills
have been severely undermined in reality by the proliferation of qualifications, a
systemic behaviour encouraged by the funding arrangements. The differing
perspectives outlined here is a continuation of the debate on the use of numerical
indicators for the evaluation of national HRD policies, and a number of questions can
105

be raised, which have also been raised in the literature. Do qualifications equal skill,
especially when there is a vast proliferation of qualifications with almost any range of
flexible unit standards? (Antonacopoulou, 1999; Cox, 2007; Grugulis, 2003) . Given
the ease of use of numerical data, (making it something that will always be used for
policy evaluation purposes) what type of numerical data would better indicate the
quality desired, and minimise the risk of quantity over quality? But perhaps more
pertinent to the research issue is which policy prescription is correct, because each
model proposes different formulae for Industry training success. Furthermore, each
model carries a different definition of success, making evaluation challenging, as
different stakeholders use different evaluative criteria.

Ultimately, the differing arguments presented here highlight again that there is a
challenge between the espoused value of skill utilisation = productivity argument of
the Strategic HRD/VET policy literature, and the counter arguments of the Critical
HRD/Stakeholder logic. In the Strategic HRD/VET logic, the quality of skills that are
developed is assumed. It is also assumed that there is a commonly held definition of
quality skills, and that stakeholders involved will utilise the skills, and that barriers to
skills usage are not addressed in this logic. However, as seen, in reality, many
stakeholders from their varied political positions, do challenge these assumptions.
Skills and skills utilisation appear to be terms that are subjectively defined and
produced.
c) Career Progression/Recognition/Portability
The next values identified by these stakeholders were the values of career
progression, recognition and portability, as portrayed in the following quotations:
Respondent 14
there is a demand from the staff; thats the other area where there could be
demand from seeing a benefit in qualifications, and from the unions, that this
is something they want; its part of their career development, development on
the job.
Respondent 15
workplace training is about recognition for your skills. Obviously you are
in this job and you are doing it well; lets credentialise you for it. It is a big
driver.
106

Respondent 12
So quite often its saying, youve been at this job for 2 years now, it would be
quite easy for you to have some evidence or workplace documentation and
that will help you gain a qualification. Definitely that is a driver for people,
that they want to do that.
but I can apply it to my job, and its going to make me more employable to
my employer, and the outcome of that is that I am going to have better
prospects that will benefit my family, me and family.
Respondent 13
Youve got individual coming through workplaces, through businesses;
theyre looking for some sort of career pathway for promotion;
Respondent 11
it is not just about them gaining the qualification; it is about them being on
a pathway of learning; about gaining skills to be self-directed learners, and to
see learning in progression, as a continuous part of working.
These have been grouped together as in the data, they appear as intertwining concepts.
Career progression was viewed as increased employment mobility, associated with
upskilling and therefore acquiring higher wages. Recognition of skills was seen as
both systemic and personal; that individuals could gain national qualifications and
therefore have their skills accredited, but also have the personal satisfaction of being
recognised as a skilled worker. Portability was seen as the labour market benefit to be
derived from acquiring recognised qualifications. The linking argument then is that
having ones skills recognised through national qualifications would lead to portable
skills, that result in career progression. This reflects the Strategic HRD/VET logic in
terms of the mutually beneficial nature of VET outcomes that the logic is supposed to
produce. Qualifications here are indicators of skills, an indicator that is recognised by
trainees, their current and prospective employers, and the wider labour market. These
qualifications produce these specific outcomes for trainees, but they are equally
valuable to employers to the extent that they will willingly provide career progression
affordances to trainees and higher wages.

107

d) Access/Equity/Self-worth

The following quotations reveal that improved access to training for minorities and
under-represented groups such as Maori, women and persons who were
unsuccessfully in the traditional educational system remains an enduring value
expected of the Industry Training system.
Respondent 13
But there is also a lot of people within the travel industry who have no
qualification, who have learnt on the job, and one of the value-adds for the
travel industry is that we can say we can help credentialise your staff, in terms
of rewarding them for what they do on an everyday basis, and they can get
some recognition there.
Respondent 6
New industry coverage, people doing training who didnt get training before,
particularly Maori, was very important.
Respondent 14
there is a lot of pride in achieving these qualifications on the job
But doing a good job, it is part of your self worth, your self value.
This is reflective of the Strategic HRD/VET logic that results in these mutually
beneficial social outcomes, and the belief that access to learning opportunities is a
basic human right in order to unlock human potential and foster self actualisation.
This further reflects the logics assumption that the acquisition of qualifications,
irrespective of the kind and quality of these qualifications, is an appropriate proxy for
skills, and that their acquisition automatically lead to socio-economic progress.

Value to these stakeholders

Before moving on to the next research question, it is important to discuss not only
how these stakeholders view value in relation to employers and trainees, but also what
is the value to them as players in the Industry Training System (Smelt, 1995).The
following quotations reveal some of the political considerations that are at play which
impacts the valuing of Industry Training.

108

Respondent 5
In 1992, the Minister of State Services, Bill Birch asked the State Services
Commission to develop a public sector response to the governments 1992
Industry Training StrategyMinisters of State Services, particularly Mr Birch
when he was Minister, but recently Trevor Mallard, have been quite outspoken
in their support for Industry Training and its importance, and have wanted
SSC to give that message to the departments, that this is important, and we
expect you to participate.
Respondent 3
There was a tendency with the Ministers who were there that they wanted to
know about success, so Modern Apprenticeships was one of the flagships of
the Clark government. They wanted to be able to stand up at election time and
say Look what weve done, new apprenticeships blah, blah, blah. So Helen
Clark would just make up the number she wanted to add to her election
promise on her way to give a speech. And our people would be at the speech
and say oh so thats what we are going to be doing. So it was very political
and very much success story.
The quotations speak to the influence of formal political powers impact on Industry
Training, but there are also other forms of political power among these stakeholders
that have influence on the valuing process. As indicated, at the Ministerial level,
numbers are used as a persuasive tool to either win votes or influence support for
certain policy decisions. Unions, having lost most of their influence with the passing
of the Employment Contracts Act, want to maintain or regain waning relevance
through training/concern for wages and progression. ITOs need funding to survive
and thrive, and as indicated earlier, are incentivised to increase the quantity of their
training arrangements, which can be at the expense of quality considerations. Industry
bodies concerns in relation to Industry Training appear to vary based on the sector in
question. For the tourism sector, there are concerns about skills shortages, retention,
and so Industry Trainings value is seen in relation to those concerns. For the State
Sector, as the quotations above suggest, the valuing of Industry Training can be
influenced by Ministerial concerns about Industry Training. This mirrors the concerns
of the Critical HRD/Stakeholder perspective, which argues that the Strategic HR/VET
logic of alignment of roles of VET stakeholders is faulty; these roles can be
competing and defined by vested interests, particularly at the level of institutions that
are originally designed to facilitate VET implementation. In other words, the Strategic
HRD/VET logic takes for granted the facilitatory nature of these institutions, such as

109

ITOs, and VET policy evaluation can be enriched through a better understanding of
how these institutions impact the creation of VET outcomes.

All the respondents to some extent have a vested interest in the positions that they
take in relation to the valuing of Industry Training. Additionally, all the respondents,
by training and experience, are what one could consider HR experts. They all had
extensive experience in the field, and therefore views expressed reflect an allegiance
to the training field and its benefits. This then translates into a constant need to
persuade and to sell training benefits, and to even use their HR knowledge as a
leveraging point in persuasive arguments with other stakeholders. The following story
recounted by a respondent encapsulates this type of persuasive argument:

Respondent 13
I had a meeting with some highly educated, more doctorates in the room than
you could shake a stick at. And I asked them the question about whether or not
we should be investing in numeracy and literacy initiatives in the
_______sector. And of course the immediate response from people who are
running these major _____ was Oh no, we are a better type of person. There
are a lot of highly qualified people here. So I said, Well humour me please. I
would just like to ask you two questions. Can I have a show of hands around
the room whether or not you could demonstrate a high level competency in
reading a balance sheet? And there is a sort of nervous shuffle around the
room. Youve been tasked with putting forward the business case for the
investment in ICT in your sector. Can I please have a show of hands around
the room about your capability to do that? And so there is another nervous
shuffle.
So they are more likely to support the view that Industry Training is beneficial to
organisations, and to view persons who do not share that perspective as being
uninformed. If this viewpoint is credible, then this presents a challenge for VET
policy implementation, as a HR practitioners mindset and training appears to be
critical to successful VET engagement. This is an issue that is explored further in this
chapter when the role of HR champions in the VET engagement is examined.
How is value from Industry Training determined by its stakeholders?

This research question seeks to unearth the evaluative practices of these stakeholders.
The question aims to understand how these respondents determine the extent to which
110

their anticipated impacts from Industry Training were realised. The analysis of the
responses revealed a tension among these stakeholders between the use of official and
often quantitative evaluative data and the use of their experience as practitioners in
the field. This is reflective of the tensions between the two paradigms in the analytical
framework. On one hand, those who advocated the views of the Strategic HRD/VET
policy logic tended to also cite the use of quantitative evaluative data as their means
of determining the value of Industry Training. On the other hand, those who
expressed views which were more critical of the Industry Training system tended to
use their experience or stories as their means of evaluation.

In the case of quantitative outcomes, primarily numbers of trainees, numerical

indicators were often the means of evaluation. So numbers are simultaneously an
outcome and an evaluative device. This, as already indicated, is predicated on the
performance reporting system utilises to monitor the Industry Training system, as the
following statement shows:
Respondent 1
TEC in 2007, where the move went from funding rules, regulations and
profiles and charters, to investment plans, outcome-focused or results-focused
education, which are based on key performance indicators that are proxies for
what we think the industry needs. Things like completions of national
qualifications, completion of national qualifications within a duration that has
been set by the ITO, those sorts of things.
Skills, career progression, access, equity and recognition were also assessed by
stakeholders aligned to the Strategic HRD/VET policy logic using quantitative
indicators. This is not surprising as the competency movement in training out of
which Industry Training was born, is based on the premise that skills through a
national qualifications framework could be made visible, objective and quantifiable.
Career progression is deemed to be made visible, objective and quantifiable via
completion and movement up the qualifications framework, in the case of Industry
Training, through the various levels. The same principle is also applied when
evaluating access and equity outcomes in relation to minority groups. Recognition is
also then easily determined by the system, as trainees gained a record of achievement.

111

Respondents who expressed criticism of the use of quantitative indicators did so, on
the basis that their experience as practitioners leads them to an assessment and
judgement that often runs counter to the Strategic HRD/VET doctrine. The following
quotations are some examples:
Respondent 14
I heard of this company that I was told invested heavily in training. And they
did, but all of it was Occupational Health and Safety. Nothing else. And to
make matters worse, most of the staff were Maori. So these poor fellows had
no opportunity to improve themselves, to really engage.
Respondent 5
I have serious questions about the assessment process involved. For example,
I had to work with a Personal Assistant who didnt have a clue about how to
do her job. Yet she had an Industry Training qualification in her area. I just
dont know.
All of the these quotations raise a number of questions questions about whether
equity and access can be measured by participation rate only, whether qualification =
skill, whether in reality qualifications lead to career progression, particularly as
measured by wage effects. But the common basis of these conclusions was the
respondents experience when interfacing with the Industry Training system. This is
not to say that the conclusion drawn by these respondents are necessarily incorrect.
For example, since the interviews were conducted, new research conducted in 2009
by Department of Labour/Statistics New Zealand on the links between Industry
Training and improved earnings showed that Industry Training only resulted in
significant improvements in earnings when trainees complete at Levels 4 and above,
and that white, young males benefited from greater wage effects than other categories
of trainees (Crichton, 2009). This then is an indicator that those who argue that
Industry Training has little effect on trainees wages and career progress may not be
off the mark. This also is in keeping with other research conducted on VET elsewhere
where it is argued that the education gospel has been exaggerated, and that while
education does lead to greater mobility, it does not do so equally (Wolf, 2002).

However the fact that stakeholders rely on their experience as a major means of
evaluation is significant, as while one can argue (as outlined earlier) that the use of
112

quantitative indicators can prove problematic, the reliance on experience is also

equally problematic, as it is also tends to be highly subjective and political. What the
data also highlighted was the tendency among stakeholders to use their experiences,
and that of their colleagues, as the basis of their evaluations, irrespective of which
paradigm their views seemed to align with. These then tend to become stories, that are
then used as persuasive devices in the bid to gain political traction. The following
statements exemplify this:
Respondent 10
Only anecdotal, and it has improvedI mean, these stories Ive had from
numerous employers.

Respondent 2
And I guess some of the evidence we see, which is anecdotal, there is a lot of
pride in achieving these qualifications on the job.
Respondent 3
but they will tell you stories about what it means to individual firmsYou
will get all these stories about how it helps their training systemsSo there is
the public good, and the private good.
Respondent 9
But in terms of proving the case for more funding, and it having some effect,
so what we did we relied on stories. So we got stories about individual
companies and how it was having an effect, and these are quite powerful with
politicians.
What then may be occurring is that as stakeholders interface and share their
experiences, these become stories that are repeated and become artefacts of the
system or examples of a particular viewpoint. The following story for example, was
repeated by three different respondents:
Respondent 10
____ was at the _____ ITO and her predecessor will tell the same story.
_____ Industry basically old knarly bastards who knew what they wanted and
demanded it now. Hilarious stories. But what they did was created a training
environments by helping those organisations meet the accident and
compensation requirements, health and safety requirements. So theyd give
them small chunks of training to help them reduce their liability to the
113

government. And then what they found was that some companies would come
back and say that was good, what can you do next? And I used to keep hearing
those stories. You give them something, you show them it works, and then
what else can you do for me? What else have you got? Well, Im glad you
asked. I just love that story about how you get into a hard-nosed non-training
environment with training, and then you get into other areas.
This is similar to what one finds in the Industry Training policy literature. The
Brinkerhoff-led study on returns of Industry Training in the Agriculture sector has
been influential in the use of success cases (Hardy, 2008). Consequently, there has
been an increase in the use of cases as a means of determining and selling how
Industry Training leads to increased skill utilisation, and other organisational benefits.
For example, numerous stories, commonly called cases are cited on the use of
Industry Training to improve workplace productivity. The challenge is however that it
is unclear how these success cases are selected. It can possibly be argued that the
use of the word case to describe these stories gives it credibility and an air of
empirical authenticity. But it however should not be equated with academically
defined case studies, as all these cases are examples of success in Industry Training,
and never highlights any failures. The same can be said of how some respondents
referred to research, that the reference to the term research provides validation for
a certain viewpoint, and then becomes a selling device for Industry Training
advocates.
Respondent 13
we go back to that research project that we are doing in order to better sell
that, to have research that says invest and you will see a return.
Respondent 15
We know that research has been done around the productivity output of
supervisors. If you train and assess a first line manager or supervisor, the
amount of productivity that you gain from their confidence, from their needing
less supervision, from them being able to problem-solve, and be smarter in the
way they work, we know that there is a key area of productivity that comes
from the value of that qualification.
The challenge is that the selection of the stories tend to be the successful ones, or at
least the story that supports the opinion of the person in question.

114

It should also be pointed out that the reliance on experience and practitioner wisdom
as a means of evaluation is also a response to the limited empirical research and
research funding available. Almost all respondents noted that lack of emphasis on
research, as exemplified by this comment from one respondent:
Respondent 6
Evaluation has not been done at either the individual level, firm level or a
country level. There are big gaps in what we know about why, whether it is
good or not.
Most bemoaned the need for more research to be done, an issue that was being
addressed as more ITOs develop internal research capability. However, these findings
highlight the evaluation process as subjective and value-laden. Evaluative data,
whether it is quantitative or experiential, needs to be questioned in terms of the
motives and value positions of its users. This highlights the gaps in both paradigms in
the analytical framework. The Strategic HRD/VET logics preference for the use of
certain quantitative indicators as proxies for broader VET outcomes has its
shortcomings. The link between how qualification attainment fosters career
progression and increased productivity is unclear, not understood, and potentially may
not even exist. The Critical HRD/Stakeholder logic offers this kind of critique, but
this critique appears more often than not to be based on personal experiences and
hunches. The absence of the use of robust research to underpin these arguments,
weakens the logic, and also run the risk of being used for political purposes, thereby
not representing an improvement in the Strategic HRD/VET logics approach to VET
evaluation.

On a final note on how value is determined, none of the respondents were able to
indicate how they determined the value of portability of Industry Training, neither by
way of their experience or the use of any form of evaluative research. Portability then
appears to be an enduring outcome that is expected from Industry Training, but one
that has not been subjected to either formal or informal evaluation. This reflects one
of the biggest gaps in the Strategic HRD/VET logic, as portability of qualifications is
espoused as one of the mutually beneficial outcomes for both trainees and employers,
and by extension the wider economy. In the face of increased job insecurity caused
for labour market and economic deregulation, portability of workers skills was to be
115

their new bargaining chip in the labour market. The lack of mechanism to measure
this outcome represents a major flaw and collapse in the logic.

How is value created for different stakeholders from engagement in the

Industry Training Strategy?

This research also wanted to unearth the processes and factors that led to the creation
of value for these stakeholders. By extension, these also explain the factors that lead
to engagement or lack of engagement on the part of stakeholders. The interview data
revealed six major factors that lead to the creation of value for these stakeholders (See
Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1 Factors leading to Value Creation from Industry Training:
policymakers and industry interest group perspectives

HR
Infrastructure

Trainee
Motivation

Funding

VALUE

Environmental
Factors

ITO

116

a) HR Infrastructure
The existence of an HR infrastructure was identified by most interviewees as essential
for creating value from Industry Training, both at the organizational level and the
sectoral level. One of the characteristics of the HR Infrastructure identified by
respondents were the presence of champions, persons within the organization or the
sector who believed in the potential of Industry Training and were prepared to
undertake its implementation, as the following quote shows:
Respondent 8
And so what happened was they were slower in getting into training, because
they had to have an industry group of enthusiasts that set the industry training
organisation up, made the relationships with NZQA, learned about unit
standards and how it all worked
Another characteristic of the HR infrastructure identified was a history and culture of
training investment whether in the sector or in the organization. Hence not
surprisingly, respondents noted that sectors that had an established history of
Apprenticeships prior to 1992 when the Industry Training Act was passed, and
organisations that already had quite structured training programmes more easily
engaged in and gained benefit from Industry Training. The following quotations
highlight some of these points:
Respondent 12
Now same scenario is a medium sized company, larger NZ employer. We are
probably talking around 1000 employees (they are still tiny little businesses on
a global scale). But they have got an HR and Training capability inside which
actually supports (and a HRM and HRD system) them keeping people
employed and developing them in quite a structured way that a SME doesnt
have. These people cant engage, theyve got Mom and Pops businesses; they
are struggling to survive; they dont have that capability in HRD.
Respondent 16
It could be that theyve got a structured training programme and they have
been able to align the qualifications to the training programme that they have.
So it hasnt been that much extra work from them; they were going to be
doing the training anyway, and actually there is a value-add for the trainee as
they get a qualification.
117

The above quotations also highlight the third characteristic of the HR Infrastructure
which is HR capability. HR capability appears to be defined by respondents as the
knowledge of how skills can be utilised to create value such as increased productivity
for example. It is also defined as linked to a wider management capability in terms of
understanding ones sector, and how skills combine with technology, and quality
management practices to add value, as the following quotations exemplify:
Respondent 4
An informed industry is an industry that understands, particularly those that
have got lots of SMEs, that understands the strategic value to their industry
from education and training. And not just training for their employees, but
their own professional development. The education investment, in research
and development, in technology transfer, the whole 9 yards. Thats the
industry that feeds into a strategic training plan.
Respondent 6
And the only way to drive productivity is a good combination of skills,
technology and management capability business strategy can be folded into
management capability if you like.
Respondent 14
there is almost no point in a workplace unless you have a management
system that is capable of utilising the skills that have been developed.
Respondent 5
NZs management competency profile in terms of the OECD is not that
great. There is not a lot of good basic management skills even in some quite
senior positions.
The data aligns with research findings elsewhere, which shows a direct correlation
between firm size, presence of HRD capability and culture and greater investment in
training, including VET (Ashton, 2002, 2004; Becton & Graetz, 2001). The data also
shows that HRD and management capability is both the answer and the problem as far
as skills deployment is concerned; its presence is a necessary input to the creation of
value from skills it appears, and its absence is the reason for under-investment in
skills and poor utilisation. These findings also raise issues for the access and equity
goals for VET investment. Large organisations and sectors with strong training
traditions have greater capacity to align their training programmes to the Industry
Training system. This does not significantly improve accessibility to VET for
118

disadvantaged groups, as these firms and sectors already provided access to VET
(Tight, 2002). This supports workplace learning research as well as the Critical
HRD/Stakeholder perspective that the benefit of VET to learners is dependent on
workplace affordances (Vaughan et al, 2011).
b) Government Funding
All participants, barring none, expressed the view that without government funding,
Industry Training would not have happened, and that there would be far less
investment in employee training and development in New Zealand. Therefore it
incentivised training investment. However, given that the lack of HR infrastructure
can create a disadvantage to Industry Training engagement, the structure of the
funding arrangements then becomes even more important incentivising the kind of
outcomes desired from the system. And the performance reporting system has assisted
in this regard, for example, increasing the numbers of Maori and Pacific Islanders
participating in Industry Training, in keeping with equity and access values. However,
the history of Industry Training funding also reveals that with demand-led philosophy
underpinning the structure of funding, some sectors with longer histories of training
have ended up receiving more funding over time (N. Green et al., 2003).

Also like HR infrastructure, government funding, was viewed as both saviour and the
devil. As pointed out, respondents view it as driving training investment, but also, in
combination with the performance reporting system, creating perverse incentives,
such as the proliferation of qualifications, and particularly low level qualifications
(World Class skills: implementing the Leitch review of skills in England, 2007). The
Strategic HRD/VET logic views government VET investment as a means to the
desired end results, and makes no allowances for potential perversion. Through the
Critical HRD/Stakeholder lens, it can be argued that funding at least in some
instances, is not only the means to achieve outcomes but can be an end in itself for
example receipt of maximum levels of funding to maintain financial viability of an
ITO. This paradigm can take into account how different values among stakeholders
can alter behaviour in response to system incentives.

119

c) ITOs
The quality of the operations of ITOs was also identified as being critical to the
creation of value from Industry Training. What was revealed that the role of ITOs
particularly since 2002 with the increased emphasis on their strategic leadership
function has increased in complexity, something which is reflected in the increase is
staff size and operations of the ITOs interviewed (Industry Training skills leadership:
the role of industry training organisations in shaping skills in the New Zealand
economy, 2006). In order to carry out their official stated role, ITOs appear to have to
be adept at the following:
-

Building trust and authority within their sectors:

o Respondent 12 - From an ITOs perspective, it was building that trust
to get the industry to see the value of developing qualifications for
their industry and how it was going to improve the skills of their staff
and inevitably their bottom-line. Once the qualifications were
developed which is an on-going thing for us as an ITO making and
getting them to see how it can be valuable and useful for them, in
terms of upskilling their staff, and actually putting some money
towards a training budget that will support Industry Training.

Marketing their role and services:

o Respondent 15 - We do a lot of cold calling. We get in contact with
workplaces to see if they are interested in training for their staff. While
they might meet with you, it can be quite difficult to convert them into
all these things that were saying.

Providing support at the sector, organisational and individual trainee levels

through collaboration:
o Respondent 13 - If you look at the nexus role that ITOs hold between
these range of stakeholders, and industry, government and other
tertiaries and then the businesses themselves, the customer its an
incredibly complex range of stakeholders.
o Respondent 9 - they are boundary organisations; they live on the
boundary of education and training, the labour market and skills, of
employers and employees, of industry and government. They are
network, connecting organisations; it is just part of what they do; they
have to try and balance those competing interests to the best of their
ability.

120

Most respondents pointed out that carrying out these roles is very challenging for
ITOs, as one, there are a number of varied stakeholders to appease, as this quote
highlights:
Respondent 3
The long term goal for industry training must be for the ITOs to meet the
skill need of their industry. So they have to respond to their employers. What
ITOs have to do is keep the employers reasonably happy, one, and keep the
TEC reasonably happy, and often there is a government ministry or
department that they are responsible to, such as _____ ITO for historical
reasons need to keep the Ministry of _____happy; regulatory ministries and
their goals will be different and the ITOs must balance those off. And we have
seen ITOs in trouble when they havent got the balance right.
Two, as highlighted earlier, the performance indicators by which they are assessed
and receive funding can create certain behaviours which can run counter to these
roles. So for example, it is easier to collaborate with some organisations, for instance
those with a greater proportion of large employers, and a strong training culture, and
not others, which may in fact have greater need of Industry Training. Increasing
trainee numbers may not always lead down the same path as increased equity or even
increased productivity. This again highlights that stakeholders values and
perspectives differ, thus making the evaluative process political and value-laden, a
process that is fraught with conflict that has to be resolved.
d) Environmental Factors
The wider environment was also identified as impacting the valuing of Industry
Training by stakeholders. Two environmental factors were highlighted by
interviewees:

The labour market. The level of unemployment was identified as having an

impact on the perceived value of Industry Training. When unemployment is
low, trainees have little incentive to engage in Industry Training or education
generally, as they may be able to gain well paid employment without these
qualifications. This view is captured by the following quote from a
respondent:

121

Respondent 4
The situation that we hit a couple of years ago were the jobs; people
were just waiting to give people jobs and better jobs; people were
getting jobs that they werent even really skilled for. But they had done
some training and it wasnt worth them finishing because they had a
job. In times like that, that is a response from individuals, whether it is
in their interest in the long term or not.
Another factor, which seemed to be the case with the tourism sector, is
perception of the industry. Tourism suffers from seasonal, often low-paid
employment which acts as a disincentive to training investment. What appears
to be the converse to this for the tourism sector however is the occurrence of
big tourism drawing cards, the most significant one now being World Cup
Rugby, to create the need for an influx of trained workers, which then
becomes a major incentive to invest in Industry Training.

The regulatory environment. Health and Safety and other types of certification
requirements for various jobs were identified as being instrumental in creating
value from Industry Training. This was seen as beneficial, as it became the
window of opportunity to increase training in some sectors. Conversely, some
respondents noted that it also meant that valuing of Industry Training in some
organisations became confined only to this type of training, therefore
distorting numbers and limiting access and equity at a qualitative level. This is
similar to findings from other research, particularly on employer motivation to
invest in VET, which showed a propensity to limit VET investment to training
linked to legal requirements for employee certification (C. Smith & Ridoutt,
2007).

These may not by any means be the only environmental factors that create or inhibit
value creation from Industry Training. What is important to note however is that the
impact of environmental factors is not taken into account in the Strategic HRD/VET
logic. Taking the Critical HRD/Stakeholder perspective then appears that
environmental factors impinge on stakeholders values and perceptions, and
ultimately the value they believe they derive from Industry Training investment.

122

e) Trainee Motivation
Respondents from ITOs noted that motivation level of trainees themselves was also a
key factor in the extent to which trainee derive value and are able to complete
Industry Training qualifications, as the following quote suggests:
Respondent 11
The trainee needs to be quite motivated, and if they are not motivated, they
need to have somebody within the workplace who will support them and
motivate them. And those are the sort of places where we get the best
feedback because they can see the result.
There are two factors highlighted from the interviews concerning trainee motivation.
The first is the trainees own assessment of the labour market, and the extent to which
it is worth investing in any kind of education and training, including Industry
Training. The other factor is the extent to which the trainee is either personally
motivated, and values training for whatever reasons, or the extent to which within the
workplace there is motivating support provided, in whatever form. At the
organisational level then, the level of agency of the trainees as a stakeholder in the
process, as well as their interaction with other organisational stakeholders, such as
supervisors, are deemed critical to the creation of value. However, in the Strategic
HRD/VET logic, this is largely ignored.
Synthesis
Table 5.2 summarises the major findings from interviewees representing
policymakers and industry interest groups. In response to the main research question,
how do these stakeholders evaluate the impact of Industry Training, as an example of
a VET policy they do so subjectively in the main. They struggle among the
availability of empirical data often juxtaposed against their subjective and
contextualised experiences, formal policy positions, their own agendas/values and that
of other stakeholders.

123

TABLE 5.2 Summary of Findings Policymakers and Industry Interest

Groups
Value Identified
How determined
How created
Quantitative Outcomes
Quantitative Indicators
Funding
arrangements/Performance
reporting system
Skills/Skills Utilisation
Limited
formal HR Infrastructure
research
Experience
Cases
Stories
Career Progression/Wages Quantitative Indicators
Funding
arrangements/
Performance
reporting
system
Recognition
Qualifications Framework
Qualifications
Framework
Unsure
of
recognition in the
labour market
Portability
Unsure of portability in Qualifications Framework
wider labour market
Access/Equity
Funding
Arrangements/
Quantitative
Performance
reporting
Indicators
system
Experience
Self-worth

Experience

HR Infrastructure

What then emerges is that there is a more complex logic at work in the Industry
Training that creates both what stakeholders view as positive as well as negative
outcomes. This is depicted in the logic model in Figure 5. 2

124

Figure 5.2 Programme Logic for Value Creation from Industry Training
Perspectives of Policymakers and Industry Interest Groups
Government invests in Industry
Performance Reporting System

Training/Develops

ITOs develop qualifications with varied degrees of sectoral

input depending on the history of VET in the sector and
environmental factors impacting the sector

Employers choose whether or not to invest in Industry Training

HR Infrastructure/High Level of
Support for Training

Limited HR Infrastructure/Low
level of support for Industry
Training

Better quality training/higher

skill development and
utilisation

Lower quality training/low skill

development and utilisation

Higher wage effects/self

worth/productivity/profits/
performance

Low wage effects/low

productivity/performance/pro
fits

This logic then supports to an extent the Critical HRD/Stakeholder logic in that
different stakeholders have different values which drive how they engage in Industry
Training. Some of the main drivers are the level of HR infrastructure, and Industry
Training support at the sectoral and organisational levels, as well as how stakeholders
respond to the funding incentives. This then affects the quality and accessibility of
Industry Training, as well as the extent to which Industry Training translates into skill
utilisation and other beneficial outcomes. This does not however debunk the Strategic
HRD/VET logic; rather, the new logic that emerged from this data set is an expanded,
more complex inter-relationship among different factors, that can either hinder or
create value creation in VET engagement.
125

CHAPTER 6 DATA ANALYSIS FINDINGS FROM TOURISM

ORGANISATIONS
Background to the Tourism Sectors Engagement in Industry Training
The tourism sector in New Zealand encompasses Maori tourism, adventure tourism,
local attractions, information centres and tours operations (Career maps and
pathways, report, 2008). It is also widely accepted that the sector has overlaps with
other sectors, particularly the hospitality, retail, travel, transportation and personal
services sector (such as spa services). The tourism and hospitality sectors combined
are a major industry in the New Zealand economy. It is estimated that 10% of the
labour force is employed in these sectors. Also, domestic and international tourists
combined contribute NZ$18.6 billion dollars to the economy annually (Career maps
and pathways, report, 2008).

It is estimated that around 104,000 persons are employed in tourism organisations.

The sector faces a number of human resource challenges. First, the tourism product
offering is still largely seasonal, which leads to seasonality in employment in the
sector, and which diminished the profile of the sector as one providing favourable
career opportunities. The sector also has a large number of SMEs, and a high
percentage of the tourism workforce is comprised of migrant workers (Tourism and
hospitality workforce strategy, 2006).

The tourism sector generally did not have a history of high levels of investment in
training and development, and was one of the sectors that saw an increase in the
provision of workplace training with the introduction of the Industry Training Act and
Fund, and the establishment of the ATTTO. The level of penetration of Industry
Training in the tourism sector, while it has improved, remains low relative to the size
of the sector, with an average of just under 2000 tourism Industry Training trainees a
year. Much of the Industry Training provided is at the lower levels of the
qualifications framework, with a preference for LCPs, and most of the training
concentrated at Levels 2 and 3 on the NQF (ATTTO annual report: setting the
standard for training in aviation, tourism, travel and museums, 2007).

126

Background to the Tourism Organisations

Background to Company A
Company A was a small and successful Maori business involved in nature tourism,
offering a variety of guided tours as well as accommodation and food and beverage
services to a more limited extent. The staff complement consisted of 1 full-time
manager, 3 full-time guides and 1 part-time guides. The employer/owner was not
involved in the daily operations, but is the one who established the business, its
business plan, recruited the staff, initiated Industry Training engagement and assisted
in facilitating the training.

The business at the time of the research was 8 years old, and according to the owner,
had undertaken informal training of its staff from the outset. Typically in this sector,
these jobs are considered low skill jobs, in which on the job training was the only
available staff development opportunity available. Two years prior to the research, the
owner made the decision to improve the quality of training by offering the staff
formal training in Customer Service and Guiding at the NVQ Level 3. This was at the
time of the research a one-off engagement in Industry Training. The owner worked
closely with the Industry Training organisation which provided a trainer/assessor,
who tailored the qualification to suit the needs of the Company. The trainer along
with the owner facilitated the training over 3 weekend seminars conducted at 3 month
intervals in a manner typical with Maori learning style. Additionally, trainees were
expected to complete assignments for assessment on their own, although all reported
that they depended on peer support to complete these. Interviews were conducted with
the business owner, the full-time manager who was also a trainee and female and 3
trainees 2 female and 1 male. All the females interviewed were full-time staff, who
had been employed to the organisation at the outset, and who possessed no other
tertiary qualifications prior to undertaking the Industry Training qualification. The
male trainee was a part-time guide who had other tertiary qualifications, and a fulltime career in a different field. As noted in Appendix A, the four respondents from
this company are numbered respondent 17 to 20 for confidentiality purposes.

127

Company B

Company B was a successful tourism attraction company that offers food and
beverage services, has been in operation for over 40 years at the time of the research,
and is a part of a group of companies.

Company B can be described as an extensive user of Industry Training, having been

on the organisations to pioneer its implementation in the 1990s. All of its employees
have or were currently engaged in Industry Training. Below is Table which outlines
how Industry Training is used in the Company.
TABLE 6.1 Industry Training Qualifications pursued in Company B
Type of Respondent

Industry Qualification

Target Employees

All employees

Limited Credit Orientation

All employees (must

Programme (focuses on

successfully complete as

Customer Service)

part of probationary
period)

Junior Staff

Hospitality Training NVQ

Food and Beverage Staff

Levels 2 - 4
Engineering NVQ Levels

Technical Staff

2-4
Occupational Health and

Technical Staff (staff who

Safety NVQ Levels 2 3

manage the attractions)

Managers (current and

First Line Management

Managers and emerging

potential)

and Leadership

managers

Development NVQ Level

4

The Industry training qualifications pursued in the areas of Hospitality Training,

Engineering and Occupational Health and Safety are typical for these occupational
groups in the tourism sector, and in the engineering field. However, the Limited
Credit orientation programme is atypical of the sector. Additionally, according to data
gathered from the Industry Training organisation, most managers within the tourism
128

sector are not formally trained in management, given that most tourism organisations
are manager operated, family-owned small businesses. So the provision of
management training in Company B is also not typical of the tourism sector.

The training programmes are directly aligned to the organisational structure and the
career paths within the organisation, with entry level orientation programmes in
Customer Service for all employees irrespective of previous qualifications and
training, technical training for the engineering, food and beverage and other technical
staff, and managerial training for its managers.

The organisation had the internal capacity to undertake much of its own course
development, training facilitation and assessment, with these persons, a total of 25
across the group of companies, carrying out these roles in addition to their full time
duties. The training has a small classroom based component, but the majority is
carried out on the job and/or through individual work assignments. These are typically
demonstrated on the job and validated by managers and assessors. The exception is
the First Line Management and Leadership Development programmes, which
involved written project assignments being submitted by trainees for assessment.

As it relates to the findings, no notable differences in perspectives were observed

between the organisations in terms of how they responded to the questions, in spite of
the differences in size and implementation.

Findings from data collected from employers, managers, supervisors and Training
managers are analysed separately from the data collected from trainees, in order to
compare managerial perspectives with trainees perspectives. As outlined in Appendix
A, these interviewees (totalling 6) are listed as respondents 21 to 26 for confidentiality
purposes.

129

MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVES

What value do managers/employers derive from engagement in Industry

Training?

In both organisations, managers and employers identified a) skills and skills

utilisation, b) employee retention/employer reputation, c) creation of a learning
culture and increased access to learning, d) equity and employee self confidence, as
the values they derived from engagement in Industry Training.

a) Skills and skill utilisation

Trainees acquisition of skills was, not surprisingly, viewed as one of the main values
to be derived from engagement in Industry Training, as the following quotations
reveal:
Company A:
Respondent 17
But we believe we can improve profitability by increasing the value in the
product that we offer. That involves improving the quality of everything we
do, including the delivery of the guides and the staff, just increasing their
professionalism, increasing their knowledge. As they are able to offer and
provide more to our clients, we are able to charge more; clients are getting a
better product, are getting more, and they are prepared to pay for more. And
there is a direct correlation in my opinion between the two.

Respondent 18
It is important for our guides to have training. I mean, it is a benefit for them
as well as for us. They had to have training of some sort.
Company B:
Respondent 21
To develop, to grow our own middle management.
Respondent 22
And it is quite good, as these guys can get upskilled quite easily in what we
do, and how we do things.
130

Respondent 23
Once you know that everyone who is coming through the door is getting
trained at the same level, consistent training.
From the managerial perspective, a major purpose of Industry Training was to ensure
the maintenance of performance standards. Industry Training played a vital role in
orienting trainees to the performance culture of the organisation how we do
things and in particular, to each organisations customer service standards. In both
organisations, managers expressed the view that the delivery of consistent quality
customer service was key to maintaining their reputation and profitability. The
maintenance of consistency was then seen as the unique value of Industry Training as
opposed to other forms of in-house training. Respondents cited that the structure
provided by the Industry Training qualification meant that training was consistently
delivered to a particular standard, which in turn enhanced their service quality and
client satisfaction levels. Skills, for these respondents, was defined quite broadly,
covering technical aptitude, as well as general knowledge and know-how in relation
to the performance of specific jobs. Being tourism organisations, customer service
skills featured significantly as being critical to client satisfaction.

For Company B, the secondary data examined corroborated the interview findings, in
that the job descriptions developed for jobs within the organisation, as well as the
performance standards used in their employee evaluation system aligned directly with
the competency standards attached to the Industry Training qualifications. This level
of alignment can be attributed to the fact that the organisation designed its own
qualifications within the framework provided by the ITOs. Company A did not have
that level of formalisation of its HR practices, which is typical for an SME. However,
the client satisfaction survey employed by the company was examined, as the
employer indicated that these were reviewed collectively at the weekly staff meetings,
and that the level of client satisfaction was an indicator of skill utilisation.

This is reflective of the Strategic HRD/VET logic, and the economic and performance
perspective of training (Combs et al., 2006). For these managers, the Industry
Training used provided the organisation with skills that they recognise as being
valuable. Also they gain value from these skills gained from Industry Training, by
131

being able to utilise them within their unique organisational context. The strategic
utilisation of skills within the logic relates to the provision of organisation-specific
skills, and their ability to align Industry Training provision with their specific
operational standards and functions of the organisation. Industry Training then has not
only a performative function but also a socialisation function. This is interesting in
light of debates in the VET literature on the extent to which VET training does or
should provide generic or specific skills (Keep, 2007). What is portrayed in these
perspectives is that value is inextricably linked to the ability of Industry Training to
meet the specific skills needs of these organisations.

b) Retention/Good Employer Reputation

Staff retention was cited as another important value of Industry Training, not only for
their individual organisation, but also for the wider tourism sector. This was of greater
importance to Company B, as they experienced more challenges with staff turnover
given the characteristics of their local labour market, which has a large number of
internationally mobile workers. The following quotations exemplify these views:
Company A
Respondent 17
And if it is good for the industry, then it is good for everyone.
Company B:
Respondent 21
And we have certainly benefited from our reputation as an employerWhy
did we do it? We did it because our industry is traditionally seen as a low-pay,
low-skill, job to do for a short time, while waiting to do something else. But
what happens is a lot of people come into the industry, not with a high level of
education, and they actually stay; they actually stay for life...and we found that
by investing time and resources into developing staff, and offering something
they couldnt get elsewhere, it really has made the organisation more
attractive.
Respondent 22
And the guys can walk away in 6 months time and go and work on the
______, but remember that we gave them those qualifications.
132

Respondent 23
There is benefit to us in them going away knowing that we gave them
something.
To me, that is why I want to give them that broad base of knowledge. Thats
why I want them to be 100% ready for whatever is out there, because they are
not only carrying themselves; they are actually carrying ______ name.
This echoes concerns expressed in the New Zealand Tourism Strategy that the tourism
sector was constrained by high employee turnover, which negatively impacted the
national tourism product (Tourism and Hospitality workforce strategy, 2006).
Industry Training then was viewed by these managers as being important in
developing and retaining sector skills, as well as assisting in marketing the tourism
sector as a viable one in which to pursue a career. This also runs counter to the view
that employers would have no incentive to invest in Industry Training as they ran the
risk of their staff poached by other employers (R. Hall & Lansbury, 2006
Modernising vocational education and training: 4th report on vocational education
and training research in Europe, 2009). Industry Training provision, particularly for
Company B, was seen as adding to their reputation as good employer, and that this
would assist in staff retention in a sector where high turnover was a norm. However
they also accepted staff turnover as an inevitability, but still viewed their investment
in Industry Training as a contribution to the wider tourism skill base, as captured in
the following statement:
Respondent 21
But we are all out for the same thing. We want New Zealand ..to be a
destination of choice. So if we can get everybodys standard higher, then thats
the best thing.
At the organisational level, managers in both organisations noted that Industry
Training assisted with staff retention and the maintenance of staffing and skill levels.
In the case of Company A, the employer and manager noted that due to the
fluctuations in the number of visitors, they used part-time staff for peak seasons, who
were also trained using the Industry Training qualification. In this way, they were able
to achieve employment flexibility and maintain service quality, as part-time staff was
equipped with the skills to perform to organisational standards. In the case of
Company B, they utilised the Apprenticeship system to ensure that they were always
able to fill critical positions when needed. In this way, their operations were not as
133

heavily impacted by staff turnover. The finding here runs counter to arguments that
employment flexibility, particularly the increased use of part-time workers, leads to
lower levels of employer investment in training (Richardson & Liu, 2008).

The secondary data provided by Company B again corroborated these interview

findings. They undertook annual employee engagement surveys, which measured
employees perspectives on the Industry Training provided, among other factors.
Additionally, Company B also had a documented retention strategy, which included
targeting Industry Training to meet critical skill needs likely to be impacted by
turnover, such as in its restaurant. It is noted however that the focus was more on
numerical flexibility as opposed to multi-skilling. Company A did not have this kind
of documentation.

The perspectives expressed here mirror the doctrine of the new psychological work
contract, where the provision of training has become the currency of exchange
between employers and workers (Benson, 2006). It is reflective of a pluralistic
attitude towards VET, where Industry Training provides the basis of a social
exchange among stakeholders in the tourism labour market. According to these
respondents, qualifications provide value that is mutually beneficial to trainees,
employees and the wider tourism sector. In this sense, the Strategic HRD/VET logic
is reflected here in that Industry Training is viewed as providing mutually beneficial
outcomes to all stakeholders. However, from a Critical HRD perspective, it could also
be argued that although the data indicates that Industry Training produces mutually
beneficial outcomes, this is an end result that is assumed in the literature. Here,
mutually beneficially outcomes are deliberately pursued as a preferred choice, and a
solution to gain employee buy-in in exchange for their labour. It is also important to
note that many of these respondents also indicated their involvement in various
tourism sector bodies; therefore these pluralist views voiced by them could be a
mirroring of the pluralist, official positions often projected by such bodies.

c) Creation of a learning culture

All the managers and employers noted that one of the key values from engagement in
Industry Training is the creation of a learning culture in their organisation. Learning
134

culture was defined here as employees constantly and actively showing that they were
learning and were seeking learning opportunities, as the following quotations reveal:

Company A:
Respondent 18
Now they just cant stop learning.
Company B:
Respondent 22
Employees now constantly ask what other learning opportunities there are.
Sometimes we cant keep up.
In the case of Company B, this is not a surprising result, as the organisation provided
access to a wide variety of Industry Training opportunities at various levels of the
organisation ladder. Company A, as earlier noted, had only accessed one Industry
Training offering. However, the employer in particular, believed that the training
provided a platform for the trainees where they could further develop their own
knowledge and skills on the job.

The documented career pathway used by Company B provided corroborating

evidence of the learning culture developed, as each job and job level had Industry
Training requirements attached. Company A again did not have any documented
strategy of job enrichment or training; however, it was observed that after the training,
the organisation increased the numbers and diversity of its tours, as viewed on its
website. This dovetailed with the interview findings that this was evidence of the
continuous learning among its trainees, in that additional learning facilitated product
diversification for the organisation.

The developmental view of training is expressed here, and for these managers, there
appears to be no tension between the developmental and performance purposes of
Industry Training (McGoldrick et al., 2001). Industry Training provided a culture of
learning that fostered both individual development as well as improved organisational
performance. In this sense, the outlook is pluralistic, and there is no tension between
the performance and developmental orientation of VET, which is suggested in the
135

comparative analytical framework. However, learning boundaries are defined by

managerial concerns the skills needs of the organisation, which gives credence to
the criticisms levelled by the Critical HRD/Stakeholder perspective in that VET
serves unitarist concerns. However, the point of departure revealed in this data set is
that this is not necessarily detrimental to employees concerns; nonetheless the
limitations on learning due to unitarist concerns exist.

d) Access/Equity/Self Confidence

Another value from Industry Training identified by managers was the increased
access to learning opportunities it provided to persons who had little or no previous
qualifications, as the following quotations highlight:
Company A:

Respondent 17
We couldnt expect our part-time staff to pay for their own training. For
example, one of them is a single Mom; there is no way she could afford it
herself.
Company B:
Respondent 21
So there is definitely benefit. Some people come to us with no qualification
whatsoever or very limited qualifications. And if we can put them through
getting nationally recognised qualifications, as they are with NZQA, then they
are not even realising that they are getting qualifications in the long term.
They are just working, and we are just assessing them as they work. So there
is definitely value to it.
Respondent 22
We have a guy who left school at the earliest he could; I think its 14 or 15.
And he worked on a dairy farm in the North Island. He came down here to
work, and we put him on the _____. We put him through the very basics of the
Limited Credit Programme. And then we identified that he would make a good
Modern Apprentice. and he is just amazing. He has just done so well, and
we have now identified him as a Management Trainee. So we are putting him
through Level 4 and Level 5 qualifications, our First Line Management. And
then he is going to be travelling around the country as a Management Trainee.
To get that position, we have to interview him for it. And it did come out that
136

he is just so overwhelmed by the fact that were giving all this time and effort,
Its not an effort; its really not. The programme is there, and the programme
is about identifying the right people for the programme. And he is actually
really articulate. He always thought that he was academically challenged. But
he really, really isnt. Its just that school wasnt for him.
It appears then that these managers placed value on both the hard HR values such as
skill utilisation and performance, and the soft HR values, which focus on
development, not only as a tool to be used by the organisation, but as creating
opportunities for staff to develop their potential as individuals. This aligns with the
definition of human capability as freedom to achieve things in life that people value
(Bryson & ONeil, 2008). This is also reflective of a pluralistic perspective on the
value of Industry Training, which is surprising as much of the literature would suggest
that employers tendency is to be unitarist in their outlook, and in relation to VET,
view its benefits only from a performance perspective (Bolton & Houlihan, 2007a).
This then gives credence, at least from these managers perspectives, to the Strategic
HRD/VET logic in that Industry Training is mutually beneficial to all stakeholders.

However, it is important to recognise that this value can be viewed as a positive,

unintended consequence of Industry Training engagement. While the respondents
pride in observing the development of trainees confidence and their increased
learning was undeniable, the primary purpose of the organisations decision to engage
in Industry Training is to acquire the necessary skills to facilitate organisational
operations and growth. This can be seen by the fact that trainees with other tertiary
qualifications were also required by the organisations to undergo the training in order
to be equipped with job-specific skills and knowledge. Also, using the Critical
HRD/Stakeholder lens, it can also be argued that the trainees freedom to develop
through access to Industry Training, was confined by organisational prerogatives and
managerial choices, rather than trainees choices.

How is the value of Industry Training determined by managers/employers?

Table 6. 1 outlines how managers/employers in these organisations determined the

value of Industry Training engagement.

137

TABLE 6.2 How value is determined by managers/employers Tourism

Organisations
Value
How it is determined
Skills and Skills Utilisation
Performance Management (B)
Assessment (B)
Customer service feedback (A)
Experience/observation/informal
feedback
Retention/Good employer
Climate survey (B)
Staff retention rate (A/B)
Learning Culture
Climate Survey (B)
Experience/observation/informal
feedback (A/B)
Access/Equity/Self Worth
Experience/observation/informal
feedback (A/B)
Key:
A Company A
B Company B

Interestingly, both organisations utilised formal evaluation and performance

management systems as a part of their business operations. For both companies, the
assessment of Industry Training provided a means of evaluating whether learning had
taken place. For Company B, their formal employee evaluation process was used to
determine whether employees were employing the skills used, as the standards were
aligned to the competency standards attached to the qualifications. Company A had
no formal system of employee evaluation, but used its client satisfaction surveys as a
means of indirectly measuring skills use and overall job performance. However,
neither used formal evaluation systems to measure the discrete value or impact of
Industry Training. Instead, they focused on measuring the outcomes that were of
importance to the organisation. In the case of Company A, they placed a very heavy
emphasis on customer service evaluation, and utilised the feedback to re-examine
their performance, and to make customer service improvements. Company B, in
addition to staff performance management system, also utilised an annual climate
survey among employees:

138

Respondent 22
It is a climate survey. It covers such topics as training and development, all
those sort of things, the extent to which they would recommend the employer
as a place to work, their levels of satisfaction with their job. And thats
certainly an indicator. We think that investing back certainly adds value to
employees perception of the company.
It is possible to conclude that in keeping with some of the observations in the
literature, these companies do not evaluate Industry Training (Grubb & Ryan, 1999).
However, taking a decision-making perspective advocated by Holton and Naquin,
another conclusion is that the more traditional methods in the literature of evaluating
training, such as ROI, was not relevant to the Industry Training outcomes that are
valued by these stakeholders (Holton & Naquin, 2005). So, in the case of Company B,
as employees perception of the company as a good employer was important to them,
this is what they sought to measure through their climate survey. For Company A,
high quality customer satisfaction is a main value of Industry Training, so customer
service quality is what they focused their evaluation on. Industry Training in their
scenarios is an important input in the equation to get the value they wanted. They do
not utilise the normative evaluation methods advocated in the mainstream HRD
literature (Kirkpatrick, 1998a; J. Phillips & Stone, 2002). However, their evaluation
methods can be deemed as rational methods of assessing the outcomes that they value,
in order to assist them in their decision making processes.

The assessment component of Industry Training was also a means by which the value
of skills was determined by these stakeholders, as exemplified by the following
statement by a manager in Company B:
Respondent 21
With unit standard-based training, there is actually the assessment attached to
the end of it. And because of that, the trainees actually have to apply. There is
more thinking going on; there is more evidence required from them of their
learning. It is actually more difficult for them; they cant just sit there in
attendance only. Theyve actually got to show that they have learnt something
at the end of it. So there are 2 things. First, that adds value to the organisation;
we know that they are actually getting it.
The achievement of unit standards was seen as equivalent to trainees possessing the
skills in question, and at the desired level. Assessment then renders learning into a
139

visible concept that can be known with a level of certainty. This aligns with the
underpinning concepts of the competency movement in VET.

Managers and employers also used their experience, observation and informal
feedback from other employees as a means of determining the value of Industry
Training. This was more obvious in how they determine the values of
access/equity/self worth. It could be argued that neither set of managers in these
organisations implemented any formal means of evaluating the values of
access/equity and self worth, and that this could be an indicator of these having a
lower level of importance that other values such as skills and their utilisation. It would
also seem that these are values that these organisations did not necessarily deliberately
set out to achieve, but were unintended and positive outcomes. Another perspective
however could be that these impacts could not necessarily be measured usefully in
any other way, except tacitly. Even if these were the unintended values derived from
Industry Training, it was obvious from the interviews that these were highly valued by
these managers. All these respondents spoke about these values in terms of its impact
on changing trainees lives, particularly their confidence levels, and the pride they
themselves took in observing and facilitating those changes. The following statements
capture these sentiments:
Company A:
Respondent 18
Definitely the staff feeling good about themselves and their role and their
place has been an obvious thing to me. Its value to us.
Company B:
Respondent 22
So I think to see the feedback from people like that is so rewarding as a HR
Manager. It is like identifying people; it makes it all worthwhile.
In examining how value is determined by managers using the analytical framework, it
can be argued that the methods of determining value are largely value-laden.
Although both sets of managers identified the same values from Industry Training
engagement, there were variations in the formal evaluation mechanisms that are used.
This suggests that preferences for one form of evaluation over another may be based
on practical concerns as well as on what is deemed necessary to formally evaluate.
140

This then constitutes a value judgment. There is also a heavy reliance on determining
value through experience and observation; a tacit and intuitive understanding of value,
which is more in keeping with a more pragmatic approach to evaluation, rather than
an adherence to normative HRD evaluation methods, particularly for SMEs (Yang,
2003). In the case of these managers, there was an inclusive stance that is taken in
determining value, in that the experiences of the trainees themselves are taken into
account in assessing value, whether through their feedback or climate surveys. Rather
than assume that Industry Training was mutually beneficial, there was an effort to
determine benefits for the trainees as well as for the business.

To an extent, the Strategic HRD/VET logic is mirrored here as Industry Training from
the data is seen as addressing pluralist concerns. However, there is a reliance on more
qualitative type data in evaluating whether pluralist needs have been met, such as
employee engagement, client satisfaction and informal feedback generally.
Additionally, more traditional methods of evaluation expounded by the Strategic
HRD/VET logic are also employed, such as completion rates and qualification
assessments. The dichotomy then between the two paradigms of the analytical
framework is not as wide as has been indicated in the literature.

How is value created for managers/employers from engagement in Industry

Training?

For managers in both tourism organisations, value from Industry Training

engagement was created through a) their HR infrastructure, as well as through b) the
provision of training subsidies provided from the government via their ITOs.

a) HR Infrastructure

The presence of a robust HR infrastructure was essential for the creation of value
from Industry Training engagement. This was sometimes identified directly by these
interviewees but also inferred through some of the statements made by them. Given
the differences between the two organisations in terms of size and level of Industry
Training usage, the HR infrastructure was markedly different; however this factor was
evident in both organisations.
141

In the case of Company B, the presence and prominence of an Industry Training

champion was noted as being critical to the level of Industry Training usage, and the
benefits derived from it, as the following statements reveal:
Respondent 21
The high compliance that you really need to have a strong culture of
understanding the importance of it. And it needs to be championed by
somebody who has seniority, which is where I came in. It wasnt a choice. I
told the company they had to do it.
Respondent 23
If you know --------- is in charge of this complex, and --- is also HR. So a lot
of our thing is very training influenced. It does have a major influence.
In the case of Company A, it was the employer who had extensive experience in the
tourism and travel industry, who played the role of Industry Training champion, as the
following quotations from the employer reveal:
Respondent 17
Right at the outset we developed our own training, and our own training was
based on our staff, our Maori staff had many of the prerequisites in terms of
hospitality, because they were involved in a lesser or greater degree in
providing traditional Maori hospitality on the marae for example. They would
have been either working in the kitchen, or at the front welcoming guests.
They would have been doing something that was associated with hospitality.
They may not have realised that but thats what it was. So it wasnt such a big
step really for many of them. But some of the things where they were
deficient; deficient is not the right word, but some of the areas they werent so
familiar with were some of the wider tourism aspects, some of the
geographical issues, or international geographical issues, different cultural
issues, all the things that broaden their understanding are the things we had to
develop training around.
Respondent 18
It (Industry Training) is a legitimate cost for the business, so it wasnt really
an issue.
The employer then had the capability to assess skills gaps of the staff, and to
determine what kind of training needed to be developed. It is also important to note
that in the case of both organisations, the Industry Training champions were also
142

involved in the wider tourism industry in various capacities. This was not a deliberate
choice in terms of organisational selection. However, it means that the perspectives
represented here would be shaped by the influence and presence of these Industry
Training champions within these organisations. Additionally, the strong HRD and
management background of these champions also meant that they started their
engagement in Industry Training from a position of valuing training. In other words,
they approached Industry Training from the standpoint that it would provide them
with the value they were seeking. The question then is whether the belief in the value
of Industry Training assists in creating value from engagement. This would then
support other findings which noted the positive impact managers can have on
increased training investment, especially within SMEs (Kithcing, 2008b; Kithcing &
Blackburn, 2002). This implies that the seeming underinvestment by many SMEs in
training and VET in particular, may be linked not only to financial constraints, but
also managerial capacity and values as it relates to training.

In addition to having a strong Industry Training champion, having a supportive

organisational culture was also seen as creating value from Industry Training. As
stated earlier, top management support for Industry Training created internal value for
Industry Training for both organisations. However, there were other factors that
assisted in creating a supportive organisational culture. For Company B, the presence
of a career structure that was aligned to an Industry Training learning pathway created
an incentive for engagement in Industry Training. Within Company A, the view was
expressed that the organisational environment fostered learning, a factor that Industry
Training assisted in fostering, as these statements suggest:
Respondent 17
Some of the training they are doing enables them, I think, to learn more and
absorb more, simply because of the learning they have obtained through the
training programme, and understanding what people want. And they quickly
understand that they have a very fruitful learning environment.
Respondent 18
You are learning all the time. There is always something you can learn every
time whether it is about the visitors and the peopletheres lots. There is
always something to learn. And we do expect them to do self-directed learning
.
143

In both cases, the organisational environment created opportunities for growth and
development through Industry Training and learning generally. However, in the case
of Company B, that growth was via traditional career ladders, which the
organisational size allows for. For Company A, the organisation structure was small
and flat, thereby providing limited scope for upward mobility/promotions. However,
this was not viewed as problematic, as growth is via job enrichment, as they
postulated that the work environment was a rich ground for continuous learning. Also
most of the staff are part-time, and so for some of them, this job was not the only
source of income, and so career growth in these jobs was not an expectation for them.

Another aspect of the HR infrastructure was the knowledge of the technical operations
associated with implementing Industry Training. As expected, Company B, being
larger and a more extensive user of Industry Training, possessed a much more
extensive technical infrastructure, including thirty internal assessors. These managers
emphasised the need for this internal capacity to cope with the technical demands, as
the following highlight:
Respondent 22
So I think the surprise has been the volume of work involved in keeping it
going, the time involved in assessments and reporting, in moderation, in
maintaining the completion rates that you need. Thats very, very time
consuming.
Respondent 21
I am actually able to train assessors myself, so we are kind of self sufficient.
We dont have to outsource that, which is very expensive.
The secondary data provided by Company B corroborated these interview findings as
assessment records, training plans and training programme design and materials all
attested to the extensive HR infrastructure developed by the organisation.

For Company A, the technical capacity was provided through the ITO, including the
provision of an assessor:

144

Respondent 17
The ITO has been involved with us at the outset. The training they provided
focused on what we wanted our staff to learn.
They expressed a high level of satisfaction with the services provided by the ITO, and
unlike Company B, viewed the process of engagement in Industry Training as being
relatively easy and pain-free. The reason for this perspective was that the technical
aspects of the implementation such as assessment and delivery were carried out by the
ITO.

What is reflected here is an expansion of the Strategic HRD/VET paradigm in that the
HR infrastructure provided in support of Industry Training is a critical factor in the
creation on VET outcomes as determined by these stakeholders. This infrastructure in
a competency based model such as Industry Training is extensive, requiring additional
expertise in assessment and management of the attendant bureaucracy, which is
provided either internally or externally. What is noted here is that this factor is heavily
dependent on the role, and stance employers and managers choose to take in
determining how much will be invested in this infrastructure which comes at a cost to
them in terms of time and expertise. In this regard, the concerns served here are
unitarist; any employee centred concerns are strictly at the discretion of the
employer/managers.

b) Training Subsidies

Company B cited training subsidies as being a major factor that drove their
engagement in Industry Training. Managers here noted that the organisation would
have engaged in Industry Training without the receipt of training subsidies, but not to
the extent that it did. Therefore training subsidies increase the quantity of Industry
Training undertaken, as the following statements reveal:
Respondent 22
We approach more in terms of an internal training and assessment. And we
use the subsidies that we get from the ITOs to support that training and
development internally. If we then cant source the money from the ITO to
assist us with the funding of the training, and we are having to buy materials,
it doesnt work for us. It works for a SME but not for us. So we in all
145

likelihood will be pulling out of that, which is a real shame. So the future is a
little uncertain
I think we would have done it without the subsidies in the first instance, but
we wouldnt have done as much. We would probably have just stuck to say
Hospitality Level 2, and that was about it, sort of easy stuff, easy stuff. You
see, weve also got _____ (a polytechnic) here, who has free fees.

Respondent 21
The funding to us is actually very important as a company. The cost in doing
this is massive, and because we are doing it all ourselves; were not using
providers, clearly if we do get a subsidy from the ITO, it goes straight back
into re-developing resources, helping to pay for the staff development. So not
getting a subsidy makes a huge differenceTragically, it has been reviewed
and we have to re-write it, and itll cost us a fortune. You talk about surprises.
Well, it is not a surprise because you know it is going to be reviewed, but what
is always a surprise is how much they are changing, and what does that mean
for our qualification, and how much is that going to cost. It cost about $20,000
to get the material written, and it is probably going to cost about $10,000 to
get them reviewed and re-written. I simply dont have the time, and it is not
my core business. Weve got to get a writer to do it, and it has to be premoderated again, and it is going to be 5 modules instead of 4, so it takes
longer. But thats life, isnt it? It sucks. But if you want something, you have
to accept that the rules will change from time to time.
What the above statements revealed also was that Industry Training costs were very
heavily weighed in making the decision whether or not to engage and the extent of
engagement. Costs were a filter through which the value of Industry Training is
assessed, and the costs to the organisation were significant. Costs also are evaluative
criteria that are constantly used to decide whether to engage in Industry Training, and
the level of engagement. For example, Company B made the decision to discontinue
engagement in a particular Industry Training programme, due to the increased costs in
delivering the programme, brought about by changes made by the ITO. Additionally,
these statements also highlight some of the debate in the literature about generic
versus specific skills, and whether employers are motivated to invest in generic skills
and the role of government in funding VET to compensate for shortfalls in employers
skills investment (Benson, 2006; Keep, 2007; Sheldon & Thornwaite, 2005). Here we
see that this firm in developing their own training materials was providing
organisation-specific skills. The flexibility afforded by the qualifications framework
allows for these organisation-specific qualifications to be aligned to the national
framework and as such, the organisation becomes eligible for receipt of training
146

subsidies to underwrite their training costs. This raises a debate on one hand, the
question arises as to whether public funding should be utilised to underwrite the costs
of what effectively is firm-specific training. On the other hand, it could be argued that
such use of government funding was justified, given that it was contributing to the
national skills base, as well as developing the national tourism product in this
instance. Additionally, it can also be argued from a human capital theoretical
perspective that without government funding, there would be under-investment in
skills that would negatively affect the wider society (Acemoglu, 1997). This was the
argument put forward by the employer in Company A:
Respondent 17
it is government funded because it is providing an improvement in the
national capacity; small but nonetheless, it is not just benefiting our business.
It is benefiting the national tourism product.
Interestingly, the employer in Company A expressed pleasant surprise on learning of
and receiving training subsidies, as seen in this quotation:
Respondent 17
The ITO reimbursed us I thought for quite a significant part of our cost. It
was great, and I was quite surprised by that.
This indicates that the decision by this organisation to engage in Industry Training
was not motivated by training subsidies. The training subsidies were discovered after
the fact of engagement. This is not to say that the organisation did not weigh the costs
associated with Industry Training, as when asked if they would undertake Industry
Training in the future, hesitation was expressed and costs and the wider economic
climate were cited as reasons for caution against investing further in Industry
Training, at least in the near future.

The findings here fill in missing gaps in the Strategic HRD/VET logic. The logic
emphasises government subsidy as a focal input. The data here shows that the quality
of the HR infrastructure available to organisations is also a necessary input for
deriving value from Industry Training, and to correct market underinvestment in
training. There is a clear divide here between the HRD literature and the VET policy
literature. Whereas the HRD literature acknowledges the adequacy of the HR
infrastructure to support learning and learning transfer, this is not an input that is
147

acknowledged explicitly or is perhaps assumed in the VET policy literature

(Brinkerhoof, 1989; Holton, 2005).

As it relates to the role of funding in the Strategic HRD/VET policy literature, these
perspectives show that it does increase the quantity and quality of investment in skills
development. However these employers were already investing, and would continue
to invest in training, whether or not there was access to training subsidies. Training
subsidies then served to increase the level of investment where there was already
some degree of investment (Tight, 2002). This corroborates with other research
findings which show that those who access training tend to continue to access further
training. This is not to say that the increased access to Industry training was not
achieved through the provision of training subsidies in these organisations. However,
this highlights a broader policy discussion about the most effective use of training
subsidies, particularly in light of the organisational specificity of the training which
may limit the extent to which the skills gained are in fact portable in the wider labour
market.
TRAINEES PERSPECTIVES

What value do Trainees derive from engagement in Industry Training?

In both organisations, trainees identified a) skills and its utilisation, b) improved

career prospects and c) self confidence as the benefits they derived from their
engagement in Industry Training.

a) Skills and skills utilisation

The acquisition of new skills and knowledge and ability to transfer these to their jobs
was identified by all the trainees interviewed as being of value to them, as the
following statements reveal:

148

Company A:
Respondent 19
It gave me an insight in terms of what I needed to know. And I suppose, I had
never worked in that sort of industry before.
Respondent 18
The knowledge pertaining to different cultures and what they expect and
what their needs are. So that was really helpful because we deal with a lot of
different nationalities. I found that really helpful. That was it really, apart from
some of the admin stuff which I learnt, which was on the computer, there are
some tips there that I got out of that which were helpful, help me do my work
a bit faster.
Company B:
Respondent 24
Just that upskilling eh.
This echoes the performance orientation towards VET. This runs counter to the
Critical HRD perspective, which tends to view the performance orientation towards
skills as being distinctly managerial and potentially exploitatively (Antonacopoulou,
1999; ODonnell et al., 2006; Sambrook, 2009).
b) Career Prospects
Trainees in Company B cited the opportunity for career development as a benefit
derived from their engagement in Industry Training, as noted in these quotations:
Respondent 25
So it wasnt just to upskill a half decent person. It was something that you
could push towards and may be build on later on.
Respondent 26
It sort of opened the door of opportunity reallypeople will see working at
_____ as a career for them. Its not just a job until they go to another country.
Its a career, and offering them qualifications sort of upskills them.

149

Respondent 24
I would say one of the unexpected benefits was actually getting this job.
(comments from a trainee who moved from the Apprenticeship programme to
the management trainee programme and who now held a managerial position)
In Company B, the secondary data corroborated these interview findings, as the
organisation had a document career pathway strategy aligned to its Industry Training
provision.
Improved career prospects were not a benefit cited by trainees from Company A. As
was earlier noted, this is not surprising given the difference in organisational size,
structure, and terms of employment. Company B was larger and had structured career
development linked to Industry Training qualifications that trainees have the
opportunity to pursue. Company A, on the other hand, was small, with mainly parttime employees, so traditional, upward career mobility would not be offered and as
such would not be an expectation that trainees would have. Instead, these trainees
noted how Industry Training assisted in their capacity to learn and to do their job
confidently. In this organisation also, the growth in learning of the trainees over time
allowed the organisation to offer additional and differentiated guided tours. It can be
argued then that for these employees, career prospects were viewed in terms of job
enrichment and horizontal career growth. This is a perspective that aligns with the
career literature, and how the concept of career has changed in light of the rise in the
occurrence of flatter organisational structures, where upward mobility is limited
(Benson, 2006; Inkson, 2006). There is a divergence then between the career literature
and the Strategic HRD/VET logic, where in the latter, career mobility is viewed
vertically as upward mobility and increased wages. Particularly in the New Zealand
context, where there is a preponderance of small organisations, equating career
development with upward mobility and wage increases might be a limiting indicator
of VET system performance, and does not recognise the other ways in which trainees
careers are being developed.

What is indicated here is that the outcome of vertical career progression promulgated
in the Strategic HRD/VET logic is reflective of a large organisation context, but is not
an outcome of much relevance for VET use in SMEs. However, this outcome is more
the result of the organisational and job design and culture that is deliberately created

150

by the employers/managers, rather than an outcome of the completion of

qualifications.

c) Self Worth/Confidence

Trainees also identified increased confidence, and self worth as values they derived
from Industry Training. This value appeared closely related to the other values of
skills utilisation and career prospects. They noted that they gained a great deal of
confidence from having the skills and knowledge to do their jobs, for example,
handling face to face interactions with customers. Additionally, the opportunity to
grow in their careers and jobs also provided them with a sense of purpose and
confidence. The following exemplify these perspectives:
Company A:
Respondent 20
It gives them a bit more self importance.
Company B:
Respondent 24
And then the company pushed me through all these courses and got me on to
this management traineeship. It sort of gave me a little bit of guidance for
where I wanted to be. So probably in terms of how it has benefited me is I
probably would have still been a ________, or potentially on the benefit.
It can be concluded then for these trainees, that they derived value both from the
ability to perform their jobs and the personal development gained. This shows a
balance between the performance and developmental orientation towards training,
rather than these being polar opposites (McGoldrick et al., 2001).

How are these values determined by trainees?

The values identified by the trainees interviewed were determined by their personal
experiences of the benefits of Industry Training, as well as through their own
observations of other trainees. This aligns with other observations in the policy
evaluation that notes that at the individual level, persons rely on their personal
151

experience of public policy as their means of evaluating its effectiveness (Thomas,

2006). Skills for example were evaluated by the extent to which they were able to use
these skills on the job, and the extent to which they saw these skills/knowledge as
being relevant to effective job performance. For example, trainees from Company A
spoke at length about the training they received on how to greet visitors, and willingly
demonstrated this during the interview without prompting. On the other hand, they
also spoke about some of the training they received in office administration and
voiced the view that it bore no relevance to the job of guiding. Career prospects,
whether upward or lateral mobility were determined by the trainees experiences of
gaining promotions or having their jobs enriched, or by observing these in the
working lives of their colleagues. The value of self-worth and confidence was also
something that they spoke about experiencing at an emotional level. Also trainees
were able to observe this in other trainees in the way they carried out their jobs, such
as being able to speak to visitors and to look at them directly.

Again, not only is there no tension between the performance and developmental
aspects of training, there is an almost symbiotic relationship between the two. As they
perform their jobs, they gain and hone their skills, and this in turn provides the
trainees with self-confidence and developmental opportunities in the way of job
enrichment or promotions (McGoldrick et al., 2001). What is also seen here is that the
narrow range of quantitative indicators used in VET evaluation under the Strategic
HRD/VET model are not able to capture these perspectives and VET effects, giving
credence to the use of other more qualitative type data suggested by the Critical
HRD/Stakeholder model.

How are these values created for trainees?

Value for the trainees from both organisations was created both from a) the HR
infrastructure provided, and from b) the fact that the training was nationally
recognised.

152

a) HR Infrastructure/Alignment between qualification and the job

Organisational support for Industry Training was identified by all trainees

interviewed. This was seen as a major factor both in terms of providing the
opportunity to access Industry Training, as well as the support received to complete
the qualifications successfully. The following encapsulate this view:
Company A:
Respondent 20
I think it is awesome eh, that they took all of us guides like family, and gave
us the training. They didnt have to.
Company B:

Respondent 26
And then the company pushed me through all these courses and got me on to
this management traineeship.
Another factor that assisted in creating value for trainees is the fit between their jobs
and the training received. While this was not directly identified by trainees, the fact
that they all noted their increased ability to do their jobs and to use the acquired skills,
points to this alignment, which would have made skill utilisation possible.
Additionally, the presence of career ladders and/or the opportunity for job enrichment
also assisted in creating value from Industry Training, as trainees noted their ability to
move into different jobs, or to experience their jobs being changed and enriched. This
was corroborated by the secondary data. For Company A, this was evidenced by the
new and diversified tours that were implemented after Industry Training. In Company
B, the documented career pathways and its alignment to Industry Training
qualifications revealed the organisational support for staff development.

Training delivery methods utilised by the organisations in delivering Industry

Training were also identified as creating value for trainees, in that the methods used
allowed for ease of learning. The following are statements to this effect:

153

Company A:
Respondent 19
And that was really good because we did it as a group.
Respondent 20
it was well presented, so it made it easy for us to get through, and we
worked as a group, we didnt just work as individuals, which made it helpful.
We could help each other.
Company B:
Respondent 26
A lot of it is on job training, so you are really getting qualifications in terms
of what you already know. So its just aligning the qualifications with what
you are doing already.
Respondent 24
We are sort of getting a little bit of both worlds working, getting the money
and getting the qualifications.
In the case of Company B, the fact that the training is work-based was seen as
beneficial, as it was easy to apply learning, and it was about gaining recognition for
skills already being learnt and used in their jobs. For Company A, the training was
delivered through a series of weekend-long conferences, as well as through selfdirected work. However, the trainees here identified the group setting as being
important to getting through the qualification. Organisational support then, was not
only from the manager or employer, but from work colleagues. Also it would appear
that while individual motivation was important in helping them to complete the
qualifications, much of the motivation was externally provided through support found
within the work organisation.

This

supports

the

HRD

literature,

especially

the

training

model

of

analysis/delivery/transfer (Kirkpatrick, 1998a; J. Phillips & Stone, 2002). The

findings here also support the high performance workplace literature, which supports
the view that a sense of belonging also facilitates performance and self-confidence in
trainees. In the VET literature, there is an argument that VET training tends to be
more valuable in regulated industries, where VET training is necessary for entry, and
154

it creates a license to practice occupational community (Keep, 2009; Ridoutt et al,

2005a, 2005b). Here the training is not by and large regulated in that sense, but
communal nature of Industry Training creates that sense of community and
organisational belonging. This in turn creates a context and culture where VET is
highly valued. What is also seen here is a meeting of the two paradigms in the
analytical framework, as VET can be both learner/development centred and
performance oriented, as seen in the commonality of perspectives between
employer/managers and trainees. However, employers/managers decisions on how
they will execute their role of providing workplace affordances such as learning
support are critical in creating value for trainees.

b) National Qualification

Trainees also expressed that the fact that the training resulted in nationally recognised
qualifications was of benefit to them, as seen in the following statements:
Company A:
Respondent 20
So I suppose by sitting these courses, you know, you do need to sit them and
to get qualifications and that, yeah.
Company B:
Respondent 25
We are sort of getting a little bit of both worlds working, getting the money
and getting the qualifications.
I got a qualification so actually I got New Zealand residency.

The fact that the qualifications are nationally recognised led to a number of benefits
for trainees. According to them, these ranged from gaining qualifications without
having to give up earnings or acquiring student loans, to gaining points in order to
access New Zealand residency, to viewing the qualifications as a step in furthering
their careers. This aligns with the Strategic HRD/VET logic which argues that the
acquisition of nationally recognised qualifications is beneficial for employees (Hillage
& Pollard, 1998; Modernising vocational education and training: 4th report on
155

vocational education and training research in Europe: a synthesis report, 2009).

However, within the logic, benefits to employees in having nationally recognised
qualifications is defined as being able to signal ones employability in the wider
labour market. Here, however, these trainees are not defining the benefits of
nationally recognised qualifications in the same manner. First, they were still in the
employ of the organisation that provided the Industry Training, and as such had no
experience themselves of testing the wider marketability of their qualifications.
Instead, the benefit of qualifications seemed to relate to either mobility within the
same organisation, or other personal benefits derived from having qualifications, such
as a sense of accomplishment or assisting in qualifying for residency.

Synthesis
In examining the data, there are striking similarities between managers and trainees
perspectives. Both managers and trainees identified skills and skills utilisation, and
self confidence as key values to be derived from engagement in Industry Training.
Even values that differed could be viewed as being complementary to both trainees
and managers. For example, managerial values of employee retention, good employer
reputation and increased access to education directly complement trainees values of
career development opportunities. The question then arises whether the experiences of
Industry Training mirrors the Strategic HRD/VET logic or the Critical
HRD/stakeholder logic. At one level, the mutually beneficial nature of Industry
Training identified here appears to align with the Strategic HRD/VET logic.
However, taking a multiple stakeholder approach to gathering data, and having found
mutual benefits to these stakeholders, does not mean that the mutually beneficial
outcomes of Industry Training can be assumed. Particularly given the small sample,
this is a conclusion that can be drawn only in relation to these interviewees.

An in-depth examination however provides interesting insights as to how Industry

Training was able to be mutually beneficial to these organisational stakeholders. In
answering the how question for the creation of mutual value, an adjusted logic
emerges, depicted in Figure 6.1.

156

Figure 6.1: Programme Logic for Value Creation Tourism Organisations

Business
Planning

Needs
Assess
-ment

Industry
Training
suitability
assessment
(incl. cost)

Training Plan
(delivery, goals,
assessment,
communication)

Improved
National
Tourism
Product

Better
skilled
tourism
labour
market

Improved
tourism
product
quality
Learning
culture
Skilled, self
confident &
engaged staff
Good
Employer
Reputation
Increased
learning
access
Career
Development

Learning
Transfer/
Job Roles
performed

Evaluation
(service
quality,
climate
survey,
performance
management

Firstly, there has to be a training champion with sufficient decision-making power

within the organisation. This champion has to have a belief in the value of training to
the employees and the wider organisation, and ensures that training is an integral part
of how the organisation functions. They are also very concerned about the provision
of quality service and the contribution of high quality training and trained staff to
delivering quality service. This is then what attracts them to Industry Training; they
are attracted to the training subsidies provided, but are more interested in the quality
assured nature of Industry Training. Additionally, they make a determination that the
training provided through Industry Training meets their specific organisational needs.
They are therefore willing to invest in Industry Training funds, infrastructure, needs
identification and training delivery. The champions are extremely hands-on in the
process of Industry Training engagement. In the case of Company A, the employer
assisted in delivering part of the training, and attended the training along with the
employees. In the case of Company B, the champion was also heavily involved in
Industry Training delivery and assessment.

157

Having an organisational culture and norms that are supportive of Industry Training is
another important input in creating mutually beneficial outcomes for all organisational
stakeholders. For example, in both organisations 100% of employees had engaged in
Industry Training, and it was used to gain entry into these organisations. This
therefore creates a community of practice, somewhat similar but not as rigid as license
to practice training practices in regulated industries. There is also a pluralistic attitude
towards Industry Training, particularly on the part of managers and the training
champion. The characteristics of these champions are also important, as they have to
possess expertise in training needs analysis, Industry Training design and assessment
and learning support, or at least appreciate the value of these, and access the experise
from elsewhere. This translates into viewing the benefits of Industry Training not only
from an organisational/bottom-line perspective, but also from the standpoint of the
benefits to the individual trainees and the wider tourism sector. This is influenced by
the champions involvement in the tourism industry at the sectoral level, and this
influence is then channelled throughout the rest of the organisation. The on-going
value of Industry Training to all the stakeholders is underpinned by strong internal
communication of the importance of training, the strong alignment between the
training undertaken and the actual jobs, and high levels of employee engagement. The
decision-making power to engage in Industry Training resides with at the managerial
level, but there appears to be a deliberate attempt to share its gains with other
stakeholders. In this sense then, what is reflected here aligns with the Critical
HRD/stakeholder logic, in that mutual benefits are derived through a process of
consensus among the stakeholders.

How do these stakeholders evaluate Industry Training? They do so largely

subjectively. There is a heavy reliance by both managers and trainees on their
personal experiences and observations in determining the value of Industry Training.
A tacit, intuitive understanding of value appears to be the way in which trainees and
managers assess Industry Training benefits, and in this sense, evaluation is also highly
contextualised, as value is viewed vis--vis the experience of value in the
organisation. Where formal evaluation mechanisms are utilised, for example customer
feedback, performance evaluation systems, or climate surveys, these do not evaluate
Industry Training directly or exclusively. The evaluations used in fact do not reflect
normative HRD evaluation practices such as return on investment analysis. Instead,
158

the choice of formal evaluation is based on the kinds of decisions the organisation
deems necessary to make, and the kind of data they are interested in. In that sense
then, there is a prioritising of some data to the disregard of others, and that in itself
must be based on a value-driven decision on what is important to know.

Not only is evaluation subjective, it is also inclusive and pluralist. Value is understood
from a multiple-stakeholder perspective, value to the managers/employers, trainees
and the tourism sector. This is done either through having an appreciation of how
other stakeholders experience value, and also deliberate involvement of stakeholders
in evaluation, for example, through a climate survey. Value is then something that is a
shared experience and benefit. The use of quantitative data then is rather limited then,
and appears largely confined to numbers of trainees and completion rate as part of the
requirement placed on the organisation by the ITO to access training subsidies.
However, there is a greater reliance on qualitative data as defined by the
organisational information priorities, intuitive understanding and experiences to
determine Industry Trainings value.

159

CHAPTER 7 DATA ANALYSIS FINDINGS FROM STATE SECTOR

ORGANISATIONS

Background to the State Sector engagement in Industry Training

The state sector in New Zealand refers to the central government constituting 34
departments, but excludes the health and educational services and local government
(Human resource capability survey of public service departments as at 30 June 2007,
2007). Prior to 1984, the New Zealand economy was heavily centralised, including
the then Apprenticeship system. The state sector carried much of the responsibility for
providing a large number of the apprentices for the trades and engineering sectors, as
many were employed to provide a variety of centralised services, such as the railway
and road works. With the move to liberalise the economy and reform the state sector
through a series of decentralisation and devolution initiatives, the state essentially
relinquished its role as main provider of Apprentices to the labour market (Murray,
2004). a

With the passing of the Industry Training Act in 1992, a decision was taken by the
State Services Commission to establish an Industry Training organisation for the state
sector, as was the case for most of the other sectors of the economy. However, as it
was part of the state machinery, it was not eligible to receive funding from the
Industry Training Fund, unlike other ITOs. As a result, the Public Sector ITO
(PSITO) was relegated to being a desk within the State Services Commission. This
meant that the state sectors involvement in Industry Training was extremely minimal.
In 1999, with the election of the Labour-led government, there was a shift in thinking,
and an increased concern about building state sector human capability. This came
against the background of lower levels of unemployment, and the increased
competition for skilled labour. This concern was evidenced by increased research on
the human capability of the state sector, and the drive from the State Services
Commission to promote the state sector as an employer of choice (Career progression
and development survey: results for the New Zealand public service, 2005; Strategic
plan for the employer of choice and excellent state servants development goals, 2006).
Part of that strategy included promoting training and development opportunities for
state sector employees, including Industry Training. As a result, the PSITO, later re160

branded Learning State, began to receive Industry Training funding. Consequently, it

grew in terms of staffing, research capacity, and training offerings.

At the time of the research, the state sector had between 3500 to 4000 trainees
annually (Public Sector Industry Training Organisation Strategic business plan 20062009, 2006). Its level of penetration in the state sector is low relative to the size of the
state sector, which had approximately 44,000 employees, and approximately 320,000
in the entire public sector (Human resource capability survey of public service
departments as at 30 June 2007, 2007). However, there are key ministries which
utilise Industry Training in the development of large percentages of their staff. The
state sector organisations included in this research fall in this category.

Background to the State sector Organisations

Background to Department X
Using the Wilson Matrix of categorisation of state agencies, Department X can
largely be described as a production type state organisation, that is largely responsible
for the delivery of observable outputs and services (Gregory, 1995). At the time of the
research, the staff complement was approximately 400 employees.

The occupational profile of the organisation is typical of state organisations, which

included a range of junior administrative/clerical positions, as well as line and support
services managerial staff. Qualifications typically held by clerical and junior
administrative/clerical employees are high school qualifications and Certificates and
Diplomas from Institutes of Polytechnics, in addition to the completion of several inhouse training programmes offered by the Department. Managerial staff typically
hold university qualifications at the bachelors and post graduate levels, although some
possessed only high school qualifications and Certificates from Institute of
Polytechnics and would have been promoted to the managerial ranks based on skill
level and experience gained over time.

Department X had been engaged in Industry Training for approximately 3 years at

the time of data collection, and the general consensus among respondents was that the
161

management of Industry Training in the Department was dysfunctional. At that time,

only documentation available on Industry Training in the Department was a broad
plan indicating that they had embarked on implementing a blended learning strategy
to foster skill development and staff retention. This meant that trainees were then
involved in self-directed learning, where they were given the syllabus and
assignments for each module being undertaken. Time off during work hours (typically
a few hours each week) was provided to undertake these assignments. Managers were
expected to ensure: that the time off was given; that trainees were provided with the
opportunities to complete assignments as a part of their jobs; and to sign off on
whether trainees had completed the requisite hours and displayed the skill levels as
required by the particular module.

According to data gathered from interviews, the then Learning and Assessment
Manager was given a great deal of latitude to sign up as many employees as possible
for Industry Training programmes. That manager was also a trained assessor for
Industry Training qualifications, having gained assessor training in previous
employment outside of the Department. As a result, the manager was able to provide
the necessary support to trainees in terms of guidance to find material to complete
assignments and tests, as well as to either assess modules completed or source
assessment services. This manager resigned after a year, and was replaced by another,
who also was a trained assessor who was able to provide a similar level of support to
trainees, in terms of guidance and assessment. This manager also had the latitude to
sign on trainees for various Industry Training qualifications. During the first two
years of engagement in Industry Training, it appeared that it was being adequately
implemented, based on the criteria of module completions as well as provision of
support for trainees.

However, the second Learning and Assessment Manager also resigned after a year,
and the position was not filled for six months. Additionally, in the wider Training and
Development Unit, over the course of 3 years, there was a 100% staff turnover. At
the time of the research, all the staff in the unit had under one year service in the
Department; none of them were trained assessors and no other trained assessor was on
staff in the Department.

162

Documentation of the Industry Training process was extremely limited, with the only
document available in the Department being a broad statement on the rationale for
implementing a blended learning strategy (which was mentioned earlier). There were
no formal evaluations done at any level on Industry Training, whether feedback from
trainees or from assessors. In fact, at the time of the research, the Department had
embarked on undertaking a review of its Industry Training engagement. At the
commencement of data collection, the Departments records on the number of trainees
and the qualifications being pursued were so incomplete, that they had to obtain this
data from the relevant Industry Training organisations. This information was obtained
eventually, and 100 trainees were reportedly enrolled in Industry Training
programmes ranging from Client/Customer Services, Business Administration, First
Line Management, Adult Education and Training and Occupational Health and
Safety. According to the interviews with the managers, about 50% of the trainees
were merely enrolled, and many had even forgotten which programmes they were
enrolled in. Many of the others had commenced the modules but were having
challenges in completing. One of the major challenges had to do with the inability of
the Department to provide internal assessment services, and the difficulty of sourcing
available external assessors. The other major challenge faced was that these Industry
Training qualifications were designed on the premise that trainees would be engaged
in work aligned to the qualifications, and as such, completion of assignments and
exhibition of the necessary skill level would be a natural outflow of their work. In
many cases, this alignment did not exist, and therefore, there were delays in trying to
arrange for trainees to gain the necessary experience required, as well as to locate
internal managers with the skill to sign off on these areas.

This state of affairs meant that there were challenges in gaining access to respondents;
however, it also meant that those who participated freely shared their perspectives,
and the challenges being experienced were openly acknowledged. In the end, a total
of 10 interviews were conducted with one Learning and Assessment Manager, four
managers/team leaders and five trainees. Interview participants the exception of two
all had a relatively short service with the Department of less than two years. As
outlined in Appendix A, these interviewees are identified as respondent 27 to 35 for
confidentiality purposes.

163

Table 7.1 Description of Trainee Respondents for Department X

Trainee Occupational
Sex and Years of Service Industry Training
Group
qualification pursued
Trainee 1 Junior
Female (over 20 years
Occupational Health and
Administrative/Clerical
service)
Safety (pursuing)
Trainee 2 Junior
Female (over 20 years
Client/Customer Services
Administrative/Clerical
service)
(completed)
Trainee 3 Junior
Female (just under 2 years Client/Customer Services
Administrative/Clerical
service)
(completed)
Trainee 4 Middle level
Female (just under 2 years Adult Education and
management
service)
Training (completed)
Trainee 5 - Junior
Male (just under 2 years
First Line Management
Administrative/Clerical
service)
(pursuing)
Background to Ministry Y
According to the Wilson matrix classification of state sector organisations, Ministry Y
is a coping organisation involved in both policy implementation and service delivery
(Gregory, 1995). The Ministry began its engagement in Industry Training in 1999, in
a very limited way, but became heavily engaged in 2003. At that time, the Ministry
was faced with widespread criticism of the quality of its service delivery, the cause of
which was linked to the low level of educational attainment among its junior
administrative/clerical and middle management staff. While senior managerial
positions were typically filled by university graduates, the holders of junior
administrative/clerical and middle management positions typically possessed at the
time no more than high school qualifications, and had a long tenure in the Ministry.

The decision to engage in Industry Training was part of a wider change management
strategy within the Ministry, which included changes in organisational structure,
business processes, job re-design and introduction of new information and
communication systems. In 2003, a new HRD manager was hired with extensive
experience in Industry Training implementation. The focus of Industry Training
engagement was in the area of customer service within the service delivery arm of the
Ministry. Given the constraints of the research, focus was placed on the NVQ Level 4
& 5 Leadership and Management Development Programme. However in addition to
this programme, the Ministry also implemented a Customer Service programme and
the Emerging Leaders programme, both at the NVQ Level 3. Additionally there was a
programme in place in partnership with the Victoria University of Wellington for
Maori and Pasifika graduates of the leadership and management programmes to
164

matriculate to pursue post graduate studies in Public Policy or Strategic Studies. This
was a part of the larger state sector initiatives to improve higher level educational
access for these disadvantaged groups in the labour market.

Based on the data gathered from the interviews, during the initial years of
implementation, the Ministry experienced numerous challenges, all relating to
capacity issues to support Industry Training. While the training materials and
curriculum were provided by the Industry Training Organisation, the materials
required rewriting to meet the needs of the Ministrys learners. In particular, care was
taken to utilise language and examples that were typical to the Ministry. Initially,
external consultants and assessors were engaged to re-write the materials as well as to
conduct the assessments. At the outset, evaluations of the quality of materials and
assessments were undertaken. This involved examination of the training materials to
ensure alignment with the organisations needs and culture, as well as examining the
quality of the assessment process. Both were found wanting, which led to the
organisation hiring full time staff both to develop, review and maintain training
materials, to manage the Industry Training process, and to conduct the assessments.
This is also in addition to the training of other assessors who carried out these
functions along with their full-time jobs.

The Leadership and Management programme trainees were all middle managers
within the Ministry, many of whom did not have any post high school qualifications,
although some had bachelors degrees and post graduate qualifications. All the trainees
had access to a wide range of internal training programmes prior to commencing this
programme.

The programme was designed to both develop and to recognise management and
leadership skills. Trainees could request to engage in the programme, but all had to be
recommended to participate in it. Once selected, the trainee and his or her manager
were notified via e-mail, with an explanation of the requirements by both parties. A
meeting was then set up with a learning coach, in which the relevant documentation,
(which included guidelines and assignments), was passed to the trainee, as well as
clarification provided. The trainees were also provided with a peer coach, which was
typically a colleague who had already completed the programme, who could be called
165

upon for assistance. Trainees also met with their supervisors at the beginning, during
and at the end of the training to discuss assistance required and how the training
would be utilised.

The programme took the form of a number of self-directed assignments, usually

around solving a variety of leadership and management challenges. At the end, the
trainees were required to meet with the assessor, who then provided feedback, which
could mean them passing or having to re-submit assignments.

Upon completion, formal evaluations were conducted with the trainees as well as their
managers to assess the quality of training, as well as how the training was used, using
a series of closed as well as open ended questions. Additionally, the assessment
process was evaluated annually using a structured quality assurance system, aimed at
maintaining consistent quality standards. This was also accompanied by an annual
review of the training materials based on feedback from trainees as well as assessors.

Additionally a summative evaluation of the programme was done some months prior
to the start of data collection, which used a questionnaire of open and closed questions
to determine the quality and impact of the training programme, both at the personal
and organisational level, targeting both trainees and managers. Overall, this
evaluation report revealed a high level of satisfaction with the programme.

At the time of the research, the Ministry had 518 managers who had completed the
Leadership and Management programme. A total of 15 interviews were conducted
with 2 HRD managers, 3 managers/team leaders and 10 trainees. All these trainees,
(five males and five females), were middle managers with service ranging from a
minimum of 8 years to 25 years with the Ministry. Most had no other tertiary
qualifications prior to completing the programme, with the exception of 2 male
trainees who had degrees. One female trainee, at the time of the research, had
matriculated from the training programme to the post graduate programme in Public
Policy. As outlined in Appendix A, these interviewees are identified as respondent 36
to 50 for confidentiality purposes.

166

In both organisations, staff were spread over the entire country and even overseas. As
a result, off the 25 interviews conducted, 10 were conducted by telephone with
respondents from various geographical locations. Findings from data collected from
managers including HRD Managers were analysed separately from the data collected
from trainees, in order to compare managerial perspectives with trainees
perspectives.

MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVES
What value do managers derive from engagement in Industry Training?

There were significant differences in the values identified across the two
organisations among the managers interviewed. Managers from Ministry Y identified
a) skills and skills utilisation, b) the creation of a learning culture, c) staff motivation
and engagement, d) increased equity, access to learning and self confidence, as the
values derived from Industry Training engagement. In contrast, most of the managers
from Department X perceived e) no real value or limited value from engagement in
Industry Training. The differences in the organisations experience of Industry
Training implementation account for this variation in perspectives.

a) Skills and skill utilisation

Within both organisations, the acquisition and utilisation of skills were identified as
the most important value derived from engagement in Industry Training. However,
this benefit was much more emphasised among respondents from Ministry Y, and
much less so in the other. This is not surprising, as the view expressed by most
respondents from Department X was that Industry Training was not working. In
fact only one manager in that organisation identified skill utilisation as a benefit of
Industry Training, whereas all the managers from Ministry Y identified this as a
benefit. Below are examples of some of the statements to this effect:

167

Department X:
Respondent 28
One of my staff was doing a problem-solving work-based project as a part of
a NZQA qual, and she made a recommendation to me about how we could
improve the waiting time for call-in services by adding a phone line. It was
brilliant. We implemented her recommendation and it improved our
productivity tremendously. If I can get a couple of suggestions from staff like
that, then I would say the training is worth the investment.
Ministry Y:
Respondent 38
After the training, it just brought home to her that she couldnt achieve
everything by herself, but to involve the whole team. And we had to say to
her, Let some go. Put into place what you have learnt about how to involve
other people. It made a difference to the way in which mail was sorted and
distributed.

Respondent 40
From learning from that NZQA system, they might have come back and put
into place something learned, which has improved the workflow, has given us
good value for money. It saved us a lot of time and effort and money. So that
could result in a pay rise.

Respondent 41
We provide technical training as all organisations do to help them to do their
job. So what we will do is we provide technical training that says this is what
good customer service looks like. When you are dealing with a client, we do
these sorts of things, and this is what good customer service looks like.
What is expressed here is reflective of a performance oriented view of training, with a
heavy emphasis on the application of learning. This also aligns with HRD literature
that advocates that the ability to transfer learning is where the emphasis should be
placed in order to derive the performance benefits and value-add from training
investment (Brinkerhoff, 1989; J. Phillips & Stone, 2002). In Ministry X, respondents
further noted that the specific value that Industry Training provides is its structure,
which lends itself to a consistency not only in training delivery, but in quality, as the
following statements exemplify:

168

Ministry X:
Respondent 36
And it also provides a platform of consistency.
Respondent 41
What Ive found generally is because they have found the training beneficial,
they do apply it. So I havent had to say why are you not doing this. They
actually use it; they use the information, the added knowledge that they have
gained. They apply it in their work generally, because Im familiar with it, all
the language that is used is what we do. Coaching is a term we use, and
coaching means the same thing to us. So when I am talking about their style
and that, we are speaking the same language. The follow-up with the managers
have been relatively easy because they have found the training useful. They
take it back and they do use it.
For Ministry Y managers, value was derived from the ability to tailor the Industry
Training provided to their organisation-specific requirements. Industry Training
played the role not only of equipping staff with specific skills, but in organisational
acculturation. The secondary data also corroborated these interview findings.
Specifically, Ministry Ys employee evaluation system and its accompanying
competency profile mirrored the competency standards attached to the qualification,
as it related to the trainees supervisory functions. Additionally, there were
comprehensive business and training plans which outlined the linkages between the
Industry Training programmes and the performance expectations. In contrast, there
was an absence of any kind of secondary data in Department X, which corroborates
the interview findings that there were no clearly documented goals for Industry
Training in the Department.

The findings here appear to support the Critical HRD/Stakeholder perspective in that
VET is largely unitarist and performance oriented. However, in the context of the
state sector, this can be seen as a public good, as the services provided by state
organisations are expected to benefit the general population, as opposed to simply
earning profits for a few shareholders. Also, given the definition of VET in this
research as upgrade training, it is reasonable that such VET interventions be
performance oriented in nature, as it is supposed to be designed to deliver workrelated skills in an organisational context. The findings also reveal that managers play
a critical role in terms of providing learning support through feedback and coaching,
169

among others. However, this role definition and execution is carefully and
deliberately planned, managed and assessed in Ministry Y. This reflects the Harvard
Business School model of HRM, where HR and organisational practices have to be
designed to create alignment and value (Beer et al, 1985). This then supports the
Critical HRD/Stakeholder perspective in that roles of stakeholders cannot be taken as
a given, but must rather be deliberately negotiated and executed. As seen in
Department X, the clear definition of supervisory roles in relation to Industry Training
was not identified; neither were other HR and organisational practices supportive of
this training. This also has implications for the use of certain quantitative indicators to
measure VET success. For example, completion rates do not reflect this benefit of
trainees. The experience of Department X revealed that in many instances,
qualifications can be acquired without utilisation in the workplace. Finally, the benefit
of skill utilisation has strong links with the specificity of training, in that the greater
the level of tailoring of the training to the organisational context, the greater the level
of skill use. However, this raises questions in relation to the portability of these
qualifications.

b) Creating a learning culture

The creation of a learning culture was a value identified by managers in Ministry Y

only. The view was commonly expressed by these managers that, prior to
implementation of Industry Training, it was challenging to get employees interested in
pursuing learning opportunities; the situation was reported to have largely been
reversed, with staff members now actively seeking learning opportunities, rather than
having to be prodded. What also seemed to be vital to respondents was the benefit of
recognising the skills of employees, and how this contributed to enhanced learning
and job performance. As the leadership development programme was also heavily
focused on recognising the skills the trainees used in carrying out their jobs, Industry
Training then provided a platform for trainees to better understand the skills they had
and how they could be better used. The following quotations provide some examples
of this perspective:

170

Ministry Y:
Respondent 40
So thats about goal setting, having plans, if you want to go somewhere,
making sure you have a plan. That you are evaluating, youre checking things.
And if things arent going right, then you are looking at solutions to try to
bring it on to track or it may even be that you shouldnt have been doing that,
and so you have to completely re-think. Just part of that structure of having to
learn, having to seek out information etc. For some people, they have never
done that.
Respondent 39
it is more of an urgency around the work that they do, and the influence
that they have on other people, other staff. What I mean by that is because
they have a bit of a wider picture, they can then impart that knowledge to the
other staff members. And they also encourage staff to look at their own
development. So obviously if people are starting to do that, then usually proactivity starts to improve as well.
Respondent 38
Also, like I was saying, it is that self awareness and understanding your job
that you actually do. And a lot of people, you know, they know that they do
the job. But when you get them to talk about all the different things that they
do, it is quite eye opening and they feel like they have really achieved
something.
For Ministry Y, the secondary data also supported the interview findings. This was
evidenced in the learning and development plans that were implemented for all
trainees, and specifically for how they would utilise the Industry Training in their
jobs. The organisations training plan and offerings found on the intranet also
revealed that trainees were exposed to a variety of learning affordances on a
continuous basis. Additionally, copies of speeches from the Ministrys Chief
Executive found on the intranet also revealed repeated references in support of
Industry Training and continuous learning.
This shows then that these managers perspective towards Industry Training was not
only performance oriented, but that they were also interested in the developmental
benefits. The two perspectives here are not viewed as opposites, but as harmonious
partners. This runs counter to some of the views expressed in the Critical HRD
literature, which tends to see the performance expectations of training as being in
opposition or neglectful of the developmental goals of training (McGoldrick et al.,
171

2001). Additionally, the Strategic VET logic appears to be reflected here, particularly
as it relates to the capacity of VET to simultaneously meet multiple and mutually
beneficial goals. However, the findings here expand the programme theory, and
highlight some other important inputs. What is clear from above statements is the
importance of the input of communication imparting, talking, encouraging,
influencing. This appears to be a necessary accompaniment to foster not only the
learning environment of which they boast, but also the transfer of learning. This
mirrors the findings from the literature on informal and tacit learning. These writers
argue that the distinction between formal and informal learning is blurry, and in fact
both work together to create value for individuals and organisations (Billett, 2004a;
Kitching, 2008a). This then is not a new insight, but it is an insight that has not been
fully brought into the VET policy literature, where the input foci tend to be on
funding and other institutional and structural arrangements such as qualifications
framework. These, while important, may not be sufficient to realise the expected
gains from VET investment. This points to an expanded understanding of the role of
managers in the value creation process. Not only do they facilitate the identification of
skill, but they also have to play an active role in creating opportunities and structures
to create the learning environment.

c) Staff Engagement/Motivation

For managers in Ministry Y, the creation of a learning culture was associated was the
increased engagement and motivation of staff. It was postulated by these respondents
that increased staff engagement was an outflow of increased self awareness on the
part of trainees of their skills. Also Industry Training seemed to create a platform
where staff was encouraged to engage in training application in solving operational
problems or improving service delivery. This in turn led to the view that staff felt
more valued for their contribution as well as for the opportunity to undertake the
training. The following statements highlight these viewpoints:

172

Ministry Y:
Respondent 36
Its about the outcomes we achieve for our clients, and I guess the key is that
our staff are engaged in making the difference in that respect. The better
engaged they are, the better results they are getting.
Respondent 41
it does also instill some sort of self confidence I guess. That you are
confident in your role, and then confident to look around at other roles and
then explore other opportunities, look at other developments.
Respondent 39
I definitely saw that people did feel valued getting the opportunity to
undertake the qualification.
There was secondary data which corroborated these interview findings; the annual
employee engagement survey was used, along with the employee evaluation system to
gauge levels of staff engagement and motivation. It should be noted these instruments
were focused on evaluating a number of elements, of which training was only one
factor.

In Department X, only one manager identified Industry Training as having the value
of staff motivation, as the following statement reveals:
Department X:
Respondent 29
This is a very isolated unit, and there isnt that much scope for mobility, so
by offering my staff training, it gives them a boost, and lets them feel
valued.
Here then Industry Training was seen as assisting in increasing staff morale in the
face of job isolation and limited job mobility.

The outlook expressed here by these managers is pluralistic in that the value is
defined not just in terms of fostering employee engagement and organisational
performance but also in terms of personal value to the trainees as well as clients. VET
then assists in facilitating a social exchange among stakeholders. Strategic HRD/VET
173

perspective would assume that this exchange is a given and mutually beneficial.
However, taking a Critical HRD/stakeholder perspective, it can be argued that this is
an assumption that may not always be reflected in reality. For example, as seen in the
last quotation, Industry training can also be offered in exchange for lack of other
opportunities for development such as career prospects, which could potentially lead
to even further employee demoralisation (Wood & Wall, 2007). Furthermore, it could
also be argued that the focus on staff engagement is ultimately geared towards
instrumental purposes how to get higher levels of work output and was not an end
in itself.

d) Access/Equity/Self-Confidence

In Ministry Y, while it was not the main focus of Industry Training implementation,
managers noted that the provision of the training created increased access to
educational opportunities to a number of trainees who, prior to Industry Training, had
only high school qualifications. What was of value to the respondents was the
transformation that Industry Training engagement brought about in the trainees lives,
particularly their new levels of self-confidence, as the following statements reveal:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 36
I can tell you, this one Maori lady. She had been working here for years.
Didnt have any qualifications, didnt do well in school. Thought she couldnt
learn. She was a good worker, but she had no belief in herself. We encouraged
her to do the training. After much prodding, she did. She not only completed,
she matriculated into the Masters in Public Policy at Vic. Today she heads up
a division in one of our sister agencies. Completely transformed. That is what
this training can do.
Respondent 38
One of my managers, before the training, she could hardly speak. She had no
self-confidence. After the training, she was making presentation before the
Chief Executive and other senior managers.
Respondents also noted however that the training was accessed by employees with
varied educational qualifications, including those with degrees, and expressed the
view that the training was also valuable to these trainees. They noted however that the
174

impact on trainees who previously had no qualifications was greater, and the pride the
managers took in observing this transformation was very evident from the interviews.

For both entities, as is the case with all organisations participating in Industry
Training, it is a requirement to target disadvantaged groups such as Maori and
Pasifika employees, and to report these statistics. However, for Ministry Y, this data
was readily available and used in their internal training reporting. Additionally, the
Ministry also had a documented strategy for staff development for Maori and Pasifika
employees.

This represents a pluralistic perspective towards Industry Training, and is also

reflective of equity initiatives within the state sector (Edgar & Geare, 2007). From a
managerial perspective in Ministry Y, it appears that Industry Training can achieve
multiplicity of goals and address the needs of all stakeholders. The Strategic
HRD/VET logic then reflects this organisations reality, at least from the managers
viewpoint.

Interestingly, this was not a value identified by any of the managers from Department
X at all. Department X in contrast only had a statement of broad intent in an
organisational memorandum, speaking to the enhancement of learning opportunities
for employees, and in particular Maori and Pasifika employees, which was issued at
the commencement of Industry Training engagement. However, there was no other
documented programme or strategy geared at these equity goals. This also suggests a
distinction between espoused theories and theories in use as it relates to the use of
Industry Training in this Department (Schein, 2004). This highlights that VET
outcomes are not universally accepted and defined, even among a particular
stakeholder group. This aligns with the Critical HRD/Stakeholder logic which argues
that, potentially there are multiple programme theories at work in VET
implementation, and homogeneity of goals and experiences among and within
stakeholder groups cannot be assumed.

175

e) No Value
In Department X, most of the managers interviewed expressed the view that Industry
Training qualifications were of little or no value. Below are some of the specific
views that were expressed:

Department X:
Respondent 31
we are not prepared to do it just for the sake of it. We need to see if there is
a value for the people doing it. There are some qualifications in the public
sector which I question their value, like there is one around public service
induction or something like that. Well, why do you need a qualification to say
that youve been through an induction programme? That to me is nonsense.
And I think, there is a lot of those out there. But people get funding for them,
so it is a great thing to have. Im quite sceptical about the number of
qualifications, the number of unit standards that there are, and the level of
some of those unit standards as well.
Respondent 30
Its a bit of paper, great. No value.
Respondent 29
The other thing about NZQA unit standards is that a lot of them have been
dumbed down quite a bit; they are quite easy to achieve.

The perception of the lack of value appeared to emanate from varied sources and
experiences, whether in the ease with which the qualifications could be achieved or
the proliferation of state sector qualifications, without the attendant value being made
explicit to the respondent. It should also be noted that some managers interviewed
were unaware of the fact that their supervisees were pursuing Industry Training
qualifications, until they were asked to participate in the research. This then would
naturally increase their perception of the lack of value, given the poor communication
surrounding Industry Training in the organisation.

The Strategic HRD/VET logic then does not apply to this organisation. Industry
Training engagement here did not equate to valuing of Industry Training necessarily,

176

and certainly not to other outcomes identified such as skills utilisation. This can be
explained by the lack of goals at the outset of implementation, and lack of alignment
and fit with the rest of the organisational operations. In the initial years of
implementation, the organisation had an assessor, who was able to facilitate trainees
as they undertook these qualifications, which led to higher levels of completion. As
trainees were completing, Industry Training then was thought to be functioning
properly. However it can be argued that the organisation could not have derived any
value beyond completions. This aligns to what some writers refer to as the training
religion, in that all good and modern organisations provide training, so the provision
of Industry Training fulfils the role of aligning the organisation to the image of good
organisational practices. It can be therefore argued that this is too limited an
expectation, which resulted in little value; a fact that became more glaring with the
gap created from staff turnover in the Training Department.

It is also noteworthy that the managers in Department X were also unitarist in their
determination of the lack of value of Industry Training, as they made no reference to
other stakeholder needs, such as trainees, but related their views to strictly
instrumental concerns, which were based on their personal opinions about Industry
Training. Managers from Ministry Y, on the other hand, tended to view the value of
Industry Training from a multiple stakeholders perspectives trainees, organisational
performance, and clients.
How is the value of Industry Training determined by managers?
Ministry Y had a clearly defined system of evaluation, which could be described as
providing both summative and formative evaluation of the Industry Training
undertaken. This was corroborated by the secondary data available, specifically the
development and implementation of a training communication plan, learning transfer
plans and evaluations of assessors performance in quality assuring the Industry
Training offerings. The evaluation covered:
-

Meetings between assessors and managers of trainees to determine whether

the stated goals of the training were met, as indicated in the following
quotations:
Ministry Y:
177

Respondent 37
They do it during the programme, but at the end of it, we did an
evaluation with the facilitators, just where these people rated in the
system.
Respondent 36
Well at the end of it, we had to meet with the course facilitators and
go through it to see just exactly how they had gone through the
course.
-

Meetings between managers and trainees to determine whether the stated goals
were met and to develop and monitor learning transfer plans:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 38
Most of my managers that have done the leadership development
programme, I get them together every couple of months and we do
have a 2-day development programme. But they are usually ones that I
have done myself or sourced out from various areas within the
Ministry.
This was documented formally in Performance and Development
Reviews.

Meetings between assessors and trainees to determine whether the stated goals
of the training were met, and how learning could be transferred

Meetings between assessors and their managers. It should be noted that this
organisation employed full-time assessors; therefore quality assurance is their
full-time job. Formal performance evaluation for assessors is then part of the
normal performance management system of the organisation. Additionally, the
HRD manager noted that their performance evaluation was very heavily
focused on the maintenance of the quality of training, and not on the number
of completions. This was because it was felt that emphasis on quantitative
targets such as completion rates, rather than on quality standards would
undermine the value and perception of Industry Training within the
organisation. Bi-annual reviews are conducted with assessors as well as the
178

curriculum developers to review the actual training, and its materials as a part
of a process of continuous improvement:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 36
Every year we are finding things that we can improve the way we are
saying or asking for things.
-

One-off survey of trainees and their managers this consisted of a series of

questions using Likert scale response, as well as the collection of written
responses. A copy of the survey was provided, and the main focus was to
determine the value of the Industry Training at the individual level, as
described below:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 39
It was more about the actual value to you or value to you as a
manager to actually having people and are you actually seeing a
difference from the ones that have gone through and completed the
programme to those that havent. Do you find that they are more focusdriven than perhaps those that chose not to. So trying to get that sort of
differentiate to sort of determine. And I think that was one of the key
findings that we did find is that it does give them that energy to
actually go out and may be do something else, try something else.
Respondent 37
I think the other thing too is that we had a lot of free text within that
survey.

It should also be noted that managers were very explicit about not attributing
organisational outcomes to Industry Training only. Industry Training was viewed as
being part of a wider equation to bring about organisational outcomes, key among
them being improved client service delivery. This is illustrated in the following
quotation from one of the managers interviewed:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 36
The filtering effect is that weve got better developed managers who are
managing better developed staff, who in turn are providing much better
179

customer service to our client base. Much more professional, much more
awareWe are getting a lot less complaints.... we are not getting the
complaints we were getting. The types of complaints are not the same, always
hating the way that theyve been dealt with. Because at the front line our
people are trained in Customer Service, and theyve got appropriate processes
in place to ensure that they minimise those sorts of complaints.
As noted earlier, the implementation of the leadership development programme for
front line managers was a part of wider reform, which included customer service
training, improved business processes and organisational restructuring. This is
reflective of much of the HRD literature which notes the difficulty in attributing a
causal relationship between training and organisational outcomes (Fleetwood &
Hesketh, 2006, 2007). However, from these managers perspectives, this is not
viewed as a difficulty per se, but as an accepted fact. Also from a decision-making
perspective, managers appear satisfied that the Industry Training was playing its role
in the wider organisational context which was to improve client service delivery
among other goals. The evaluation mechanisms utilised therefore satisfies their data
requirements (Holton & Naquin, 2005).

Managers also used their experience and observations, as well as that of their
colleagues to arrive at their assessments of the impact of Industry Training. The use of
personal experience was certainly evident within Department X, where no formal
evaluation methods were used to evaluate Industry training there, whether directly or
indirectly, as the following statement reveals:
Department X:
Respondent 27
I havent seen any surveys, documentation or anything that measures the
success of using NZQA within __________.
Whether or not there were formal evaluations, managers used their experience of
interaction with their supervisees, as well as reflections from colleagues as a means of
evaluation. Some managers were able for example, to recount examples of employees
utilising the skills received or exhibiting self confidence or accessing promotions as
well as other learning opportunities. Managers in Department X also depended on
their experience to arrive at the view that Industry Training was of little or no value.
In other words, most of them believed it to be of no value because they could not
180

observe the value, whether in terms of the acquisition of usable skills, or changes in
performance or other behaviours. Additionally, given the poor communication and the
lack of clear expectations of Industry Training in the organisation, managers would
naturally have been unclear on their own expectations.
Both organisations used quantitative indicators as a means of determining the value of
Industry Training. Both utilised completion rates as a means of determining at least
one element of training success. For Ministry Y, completion rates were important in
that it was an indication of the extent to which the programme was being smoothly
implemented, and that trainees were satisfied with programme quality. From a
financial perspective also, completion was important as it was the basis on which
training subsidies were granted. However, it was emphasised that quality of training
delivery was more important than number of trainees, as the following statement
revealed:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 36
But we had to manage that so that it wasnt all based around how many
people you get through. It was more based around your performance as an
assessor. So it was looking at how did your moderation stack up? Because if
people are frequently getting through and moderation is saying that is not good
enough, then we need to look at the issues that are being raised in that.
In Department X, the Training Department reported that of the 100 trainees signed on
to an Industry Training agreement at the time of the research, only were actively
pursuing the qualification. This was then viewed as the main indicator of the lack of
success of Industry training within the organisation. Further, the signing on of the 100
trainees was viewed as the pursuit of numerical objectives, something which was
viewed negatively, as it was not properly focussed or thought out. Below is one of the
observations made in this regard:
Department X:
Respondent 27
However, the way that it has been run here up until now, in that anyone has
been able to sign up. So thats even people who are part-time, people who are
under-performing.

181

There are clearly vastly different evaluative practices and evaluative perspectives
within these two state sector organisations. For Ministry Y, evaluation practices are
pluralistic and inclusive, in that they sought to involve the perspectives of the
stakeholders assessors, managers, trainees. Additionally, evaluation was designed to
evaluate a variety of outcomes - performance outcomes, developmental outcomes as
well as educational quality outcomes, again from the perspectives of the different
internal stakeholders. While some of the evaluations undertaken were strictly related
to measuring the impact of the particular Industry training programme, much of the
evaluative practices were integrated into the wider HR practices and organisational
operations, for example, the use of performance evaluations and developmental
reviews.
This in many ways aligns with the Critical HRD/stakeholder perspective for two
reasons. First, the fact that stakeholders perspectives are sought out means that it is
not assumed that the outcomes are automatically considered to be mutually beneficial
to all stakeholders. Secondly, there is a preference for the use of both qualitative and
quantitative data, with perhaps a greater leaning towards qualitative data, gathered
both formally and informally. Evaluation is then value-laden, as it centered around
what is valued quality of assessment, skill use, impact on trainees. The value-laden
nature of evaluation is also accepted by the organisation, and as such, evaluative
practices sought to unearth what those differing values were from the different
stakeholders viewpoints.

For Department X managers, the limited formal evaluation seemed to be associated

with their perception of the lack of value. This is not surprising, and it can be argued
that given the lack of clear goals and the undervaluing of Industry Training in the
organisation, it followed that no resources would be spent on developing any formal
evaluation mechanisms for Industry Training, whether directly or indirectly. Their use
of the completion rate as the only performance indicator for Industry Training aligns
to their goal of having staff complete qualifications.

182

How is value created for managers from engagement in Industry Training?

The HR infrastructure (a) and training subsidies (b) were identified by the managers
interviewed in both organisations as the key factors that helped to create value from
Industry Training engagement. However, there were stark differences between the
organisations in terms of the quality of the HR infrastructure, attitudes to training
subsidies and the resourcing of Industry Training.

a) HR Infrastructure

In both organisations, the HR infrastructure was identified as a key factor in creating

value from Industry Training. In the case of Department X, the absence of this
infrastructure was cited as the main factor inhibiting the organisation from realising
the value from Industry Training.

The characteristics of the HR infrastructure that were identified by participants were

top management support for the training, the technical capability to implement
Industry Training (including training design, assessment, understanding of the
qualifications framework), and wider organisational support for Industry Training
(including managerial support). In the case of Ministry Y, all the managers
interviewed identified top management support for the leadership development
programme as being one of the keys to realising the success the organisation had
experienced. The CEO in particular was identified as being important in championing
the programme, as the following statement exemplifies:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 39
The executive actually does talk about leadership versus management, and
how important it is going forward, and he has done for some years around that.
So I suppose if it is being messaged at the top, it starts coming down, then
people will get behind it.
This top management commitment was also translated into the Industry Training
technical capacity that was necessary for implementation. Interviewees, particularly
those from the Training Department described at length the process and the

183

mechanisms that the organisation put in place over time to ensure the successful
implementation of the programme. These are outlined below:

Hiring of a new Head of Training with extensive experience in Industry

Training implementation;

Undertaking a comprehensive needs analysis, which involved numerous

meeting with employees and managers to determine what was the exact nature
of the jobs involved;

This then translated into the design of the training. This involved initially the
employment of external consultants; however over time, this capacity was
developed internally;

Once the training was ready to be moderated, an extensive communications

campaign was undertaken across the organisation, geared at informing
employees about the programme, its intent, and what they could expect. It was
also geared at getting buy-in;

At the time of the research, the organisation employed a team dedicated to

managing the programme components, inclusive of pre-moderation,
moderation and assessment functions. They also customised the State Sector
qualifications to align with their organisational needs, and this was subjected
to constant review.

The HR infrastructure also included the support that managers provided to the trainees
directly, as the following statements show:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 38
My role was to be a sponsor for them and to assist with any ideas or plans
they wanted to put through for leadership or being in a team environment. I
was just a general overall support for them. So if they struck a problem in their
understanding of the course facilities or the programme, then I would suggest
this is what you do, or go and see that person to get direction.
Respondent 39
But this is something every 3 or 4 months, we have coaching sessions with
each service manager, right? And from that coaching session, we look at what
their needs are, what they would like to see themselves doing, keep themselves

184

updated. So they choose to do this NZQA leadership course as part of their

development.
Respondent 40
Depending on which programme it is, my role is around making sure that
they get given the space to do what they need to do. Also if they need to have
developmental opportunities, I need to try and slot those in for them. Part of
my role is also in supporting the managers who are maybe looking after some
of these staff. So it might be that I might mentor them up with another
manager, a more experienced manager. If it is a staff member doing the
Emerging Leaders programme, I will link them in with another manager just
to provide them with some guidance and talk to them about whats happening
at a higher level and stuff like that.
Respondent 36
They go and do the training and on completion of the training, we talk about
what it has meant to them, and how they are going to apply it in their role, and
as part of on-going coaching, we just follow-up and make sure that they are
actually applying the new training.
For Department X, the lack of HR infrastructure was identified by managers as a
major factor in the failure of Industry Training within the organisation, as the
following statements highlight:
Department X:

Respondent 29
And I think it is about getting that culture around the team leaders that a key
part of their role is the development of others, and creating a space for people
to take something that they have learnt on a course and transfer it back unto
their jobs. For too often people come back from training, get work dumped on
them, and go back into their old habits, because they are not actually given any
space in which they can try out and develop the new skill.
Respondent 27
So its like getting team leaders to understand their role in the training
process. Its what they do before the person goes on training, but also what
they do when they come back. And thats about creating space for people to
apply what they have learnt to the job, and accept that they will be slower;
they wont do it as well as they might in 6 months time. Its just a higher
understanding of the learning process that people go through.
Respondent 30
Ive been trying to establish what development there is. And I couldnt tell
you to be honest. There seems to be very little in ______ for the staff. We are
185

doing performance agreements at present. One of the requirements is What

are your career aspirations? What development plan do you have in place?
We are currently struggling to fill that, to try and find answers. And I am not
alone as a Team Leader. Its that time of the year when we are trying to do
that.

Respondent 31
And weve got team leaders who dont even really understand what NZQA
is, so they cant even have a discussion with their staff member around that.

From the statements, it appeared that there was not sufficient understanding of or
management support for Industry Training. Additionally, it also appeared that the
organisation did not have clear goals for Industry Training; there were never any
needs analysis completed, or any understanding of how it aligned with the jobs and
wider organisational functions. The training programmes were not communicated
effectively across the organisation; neither was it adequately resourced. The following
statements sum up this assessment:
Department X:
Respondent 30
And weve got staff, as Ive said, who have been signed up for qualifications
that dont fit with their job. At present, for example, I had someone on my
team who received a unit standard via e-mail with no resources.
Respondent 31
But sometimes you have to manufacture or create opportunities for them to
experience, or to do what they need.
Respondent 29
One of them has started a Certificate which I wasnt aware of, some time ago.
This has only recently come to my attention.The majority of people dont
learn by having to fill out a test. And thats all thats offered at the moment.
Respondent 27
A few years ago, ___________ implemented what they called a blended
learning strategy. And when they put this strategy in place, they looked at all
levels of learning offered by the learning and development team. And it was
just used to obviously to benefit staff by providing them with qualifications
186

that they can work through on the roll, which is something outside of planned
training courses, and systems training that comes in. And the idea is or the
belief is that we would have this is what I have read, the reason why it was
implemented greater staff retention, happier staff because they feel valued,
because they have been given an opportunity to do something that not
everyone is given an opportunity for.
The last quotation in particular echoes statements emanating from the Public Sector
ITO, and the promotion of Industry Training across the state sector, and the advocacy
for the use of blended learning strategies in training delivery. However, the
organisation did not appear to have had a clear understanding of how that would be
best used in their context. As earlier indicated, it is unclear which employees would
be targeted for Industry Training and why for example whether it was a part of the
compensation system to reward good performance. Also there were no plans or
discussions as to how it would relate to the wider training and organisational
environment.

b) Training Subsidies

Interviews with the Training departments in both organisations revealed that the
training subsidies provided through the ITO were an incentive for engagement in
Industry Training. However, the subsidies appeared to have driven different types in
behaviours and attitudes towards Industry Training in these organisations. In
Department X, training subsidies made Industry Training a cheap training option,
which made it attractive to engage in, as the following quotation suggests:
Department X:
Respondent 27
I suppose the thing is, up until now, it has been a relatively cheap way of
what the business has perceived training people. Because there has been one
person who has done the internal assessment pretty much. And they have
provided what little training there might have been. So someone would ask
how do I answer this question or where do I find this information, and they
have told them. And of course, we get the refunds once someone completes a
unit standard; we get a small refund from Learning State. So thats a subsidy
towards the salary of the person who has been doing it. So its been perceived
as a rather cheap way of doing it.
The subsidies then incentivised Industry Training engagement but not strategic
engagement, where it was a means to a specific end goal. In other words, it can be an
187

erroneous assumption that organisations which engage in Industry Training are

managing their training functions in keeping with normative HRD principles such as
conducting needs assessment, and promoting learning transfer and use (P. Phillips &
Phillips, 2007). Additionally, it also appears that the funding was a means by which to
provide training with minimal organisational commitment of its own resources.

Ministry Y also noted the importance of the training subsidies, as the following
statement reveals:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 36
There are a lot of changes going on with the ITOs and the TEC, because the
way they have funded it has changed. And for people like us, what used to
happen is we would get a subsidy for the credits, which was good for us,
because we could then use that subsidy to maintain our infrastructure. Now
they are moving away from that. We are now having to support that
infrastructure internally. And when times get tough, those are the sort of things
people look at and ask do we really need this. Although weve been really
lucky. With our front line people, we have had a little bit of a tightening up.
Rather than an expectation that people will complete the qualification, now
there is an application that they have to go through to engage in the
qualification. Thats not a bad thing, because it means that the people who are
doing it, really want to do it. They dont feel they have to.
Here, the training subsidies were also important in terms of minimising the cost of
Industry Training engagement, and its removal did force a re-thinking of the extent to
which this engagement would continue. In this case, it would likely result in
somewhat fewer numbers for trainees. However, in contrast, this organisation had
committed much of its own resources to fund and support its Industry Training
infrastructure. This difference emanates from different values and attitudes towards
Industry training at the outset. For Department X, their goals appeared to be to
provide cheap national qualifications to staff, with minimal organisational investment,
as all training is beneficial and in keeping with normal organisational expectations
and practices. For Ministry Y, their goals appeared to be to close the organisational
skills gap in terms of customer service and middle management capacity. In other
words, there were specific problems they encountered, for which the Industry
Training was designed to provide a specific solution. However, the point of difference

188

between the organisations is the specificity of purpose. The challenge then is not the
absence or presence of training subsidies, but the intent of use of these subsidies.
This finding reveals a limitation in the Strategic VET logic, as it does not address
value creation at the organisational level. It also assumes that the input of funding and
qualifications system and framework are sufficient to create value (P. Smith, 2007).
Findings here counter the logic. Funding can both create and hinder value. What
appears more vital is the managerial attitudes and perspectives towards Industry
Training their understanding, values and expectations. Also what is vital is the HR
infrastructure to underpin the training. Values and attitudes towards Industry Training
come first. From that flow the systemic requirements understanding of what is
involved, the resources commitment, and quality concerns.
TRAINEES PERSPECTIVES
What value do Trainees derive from engagement in Industry Training?
All the trainees interviewed from both organisations expressed the view that they
found value from engagement in Industry Training. These values were a) skills and
skill utilisation, b) recognition and c) self confidence. This finding is interesting in
relation to Department X, where the trainees also expressed a number of concerns
about quality of the training process, which will be discussed later. Notwithstanding
those concerns, they still held the view that the training was valuable. This concurs
with findings from other research that trainees do find training to be valuable (Guest,
1999). However, trainees from Ministry Y expressed greater levels of satisfaction
with the quality of the training process, and the alignment of the training to their jobs.
a) Skills and skill utilisation
All trainees interviewed (with the exception of one) from both organisations identified
skills acquisition and utilisation as benefits they derived from the Industry Training
programmes they undertook. Below are some of their quotations on the value of skills
acquired:

189

Department X:
Respondent 33
Dealing with difficult customers There was a writing unit, so things like
writing e-mails. Thats been beneficial.
Respondent 34
Well I did a difficult customer talk with the group on how to treat customers.
Part of that was taken from the paper.
Respondent 35
It really helped me to better deal with clients. For example, clients from the
Pacific Islands, before the training, I couldnt understand why they wouldnt
look me in the eye. After the training, I have a much better understanding of
their culture, and I now know how to serve them.
Ministry Y:
Respondent 46
I think it will, because you get a lot of opportunity to practice what youve
learnt at work. Im finding it really useful.
Respondent 43
So for me, the benefit was being able to put my head around whats working
for management when you become a manager, what do you do?.... I think it
is very important to have that upgrading of skills while you are working
When you are talking about your staff, there are more complications when you
are a manager, than just making sure that your staff are reporting to you.
Appraisals are very important, to have that relationship. It is a bit more
stressful when you try to work around your staff.
Respondent 42
I think that it is useful for identifying skills that you have, and how you can
further use them to improve your ______ centre.
Respondent 49
You know, my team is one of the best teams in the country at the moment.
This team has been winning the best team award .. So that helped me to
develop and support my staff.
Trainees then had a performance orientation towards Industry Training, which runs
counter to Critical HRD/Stakeholder perspective tendency to view performance
190

orientation as being unitarist and managerial (Antonacopoulou, 1999; ODonnell et

al., 2006). For these employees, the ability to improve their job performance was a
distinct benefit they derived from their engagement in Industry training.
b) Recognition
From the interview responses, two different definitions of skill recognition emerged.
The first view of skill recognition had to do with trainees being able to identify the
skills that they possessed and used in their jobs. This was the case among many of the
trainees from Ministry Y, which is not surprising as leadership skill recognition is a
major component of the Industry Training programme here. Also linked to this view
is the recognition on the part of the organisation of their skills and contribution to the
organisation, as the following quotations reveal:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 44
The main benefit for me at this stage, I guess for me, is the acknowledgement
that the work that I do is at that level, that standard.
Respondent 47
The Ministry invested that back into me so I have something to show for the
skills and experience that I have gained along the way.
Respondent 42
It gave me a greater awareness of my own skills. It wasnt that it developed
new skills, but it was about recognising some that perhaps I hadnt recognised
that I might have had.
The other view of recognition relates to the portability of the qualification, and its
value in terms of career prospects. Some of the interviewees from Ministry Y, while
finding the training valuable in terms of skills acquired and used, tended to view the
training as being of little or no value in terms of provided career advancement. The
following statements highlight this perspective:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 48
Hmm, to be quite honest, whether it puts you to the head of the class for
promotion opportunities, no (with emphasis) I dont think so. I think your
191

reputation and skills and capabilities will do that for more than actually what
your formal qualifications are in the Ministry.

Respondent 47
But it is totally unique to _______. I dont think you would be able to deliver
some of it anywhere else. So I dont think it would be very valuable going out
into the private sector.
Respondent 45
it hasnt affected the future prospects I have there doesnt seem to be a
rhyme or reason or a real understanding of what we can get out of doing this.
Respondent 50
I would say, Well youre probably better off going to do something at uni or
picking up some management papers. Because at least its more recognisable;
at least its more internationally recognisable too I suppose, than just sort of
training programme that you get done through your work.
Respondent 44
Whether or not that actually has any value externally to employers, Im not
sure. I dont know how much value that would have now that I am doing a
Masters degree, I know that my little certificates look pathetic next to a
Masters.
This is a perspective that was also shared by some of the trainees in Department X,
which is exemplified in the following statement:
Department X:
Respondent 33
It was really just a thing to do for my own benefit I suppose, no great benefit
in terms of advancement or anything.
Only two trainees who were interviewed, both of whom were employed by
Department X, expressed the view that their qualification assisted them or they
expected it would assist them in improving their career prospects. These were their
comments:
Department X:
Respondent 34
I did the Customer Service course, and I think it did help me to get my
current role which is a Customer Service one.
192

Respondent 32
And if I went to get a job elsewhere with that certificate, I would be more
preferred than a person that didnt have it. And I think it is also recognised in
Australia.
There are several issues raised here. First, that awareness of ones skill level is a
legitimate benefit to trainees, and broadens the definition of upskilling that exists
within the policy literature. Upskilling is normally seen as acquisition of new skills or
higher levels of skills. Here what we see is that identification of skills in use is
important, as it is linked with increased skill use, or better use, as well as increased
sense of self worth and confidence. Second, increased specificity of training seems to
increase utilisation, but leads to a decreased perception of its portability in the wider
labour market, or its ability to improve career prospects. There are a number of
possible reasons for this. Within the state sector, respondents noted that there is a
preference for university qualifications, particularly for career progression above
middle management levels. Also, the career structures and the rules for how
employees progress within the state sector also shape how Industry Training
qualifications are viewed. Employees are promoted based on a merit system, and
positions are advertised; promotions are not automatic and pay increases on
completion of Industry training qualifications are not an organisational norm. Also a
variety of factors would be taken into account in making a decision to promote an
employee, key among them being their performance record. The following quotation
captures these factors:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 46
If you put in place what you have learned, and you improve your performance,
you can then increase your chances for promotion or increase pay. But no, it is not
automatic.
Also, due to the specificity of the training, the trainees interviewed tended to view it
as workplace learning, and did not perceive its utility outside of the organisation. The
trainees from Department X pursued qualifications that were more general, and were
not tailored to their specific organisation. However, to link their perspective strictly to
the general nature of their qualification could be faulty. One of the individuals had a
specific experience of being promoted into a position that was aligned to the Industry
193

Training qualification. The other was pursuing a qualification in the training field
which is internationally recognised. What this could imply then is that portability is
dependent on career structure, organisational characteristics, the field of study and the
reputation of the qualification in the wider labour market. Also, they would be aware
of the culture and processes for promotion within the state sector, so they would not
have that expectation. Examining this issue from a Critical HRD/Stakeholder
perspective, there is no equal valuing of Industry Training, as perspectives are value
laden, and to some extent dependent on organisational characteristics. Also, based on
this data set, the norm in the Strategic HRD/VET logic of viewing career progress as
an indicator of VET success is faulty, as career progress is more complex, and not
solely linked to VET completion (Skills for improved productivity, employment
growth and development, 2008).
c) Self Confidence
Particularly for trainees who were mature learners, and who had not pursued any
qualifications for a number of years, Industry Training helped to restore their
confidence in their ability to learn, and provided them with a sense of
accomplishment, as the following statements suggest:
Department X:
Respondent 33
It felt really good to complete the courses. I didnt think that I would ever be
able to study again at my age.
Ministry Y:
Respondent 47
Apart from the fact that it was nice for me to achieve it at personal level,.
However, some trainees from both organisations who had other tertiary qualifications
also identified increased self confidence as a benefit they derived from Industry
Training. This was particularly true of trainees whose degrees did not include
supervisory management education (in the case of those who completed the
leadership development programme), or whose degrees were in a different field from
the particular Industry Training qualification. For them, the training provided them
194

with confidence to either manage other employees, or confidence from being

competent in the specific field and developing other life skills, as the following
statements reveal:
Department X:
Respondent 32
Basically to become a confident trainer that can realise the needs of the
learners. And to teach them in the appropriate way, that would be responsive
to their needs.
Ministry Y:
Respondent 43
Sure I did a degree. But I didnt learn how to manage staff. I picked a few
things over the years, but the training helped me to cement my knowledge on
how to supervise. Now I know what I am doing, instead of just fudging around
and hoping for the best.
Respondent 49
But it helps you personally as well. Ive got young kids, you know. My son is
22 and my daughter is 16, 17 now. And when I did the course particularly on
how to deal with difficult behaviour, that helped me to change my way of
living. That helped me to support my kids in a better way. So it did help me
personally .
These trainees then gained personal value, as the training equipped them not only with
skills, but allowed them to gain the confidence to lead fuller lives. This is in keeping
with findings from other training research, which concluded that the development of
human capability should ultimately end in this outcome increased capacity to lead a
better life (Bryson & ONeil, 2008; ODonoghue & Maguire, 2005). This is reflective
of the Strategic HRD/VET paradigm, which views VET as being targeted towards
pluralistic goals, and having the capacity to meet both performance and
developmental VET outputs.
How are these values determined by State Sector trainees?
Trainees in both organisations determined the value of Industry Training based on
their personal experience. This reflects other observations made elsewhere in the
policy evaluation literature that, at the individual level, persons rely on their
experience of public policy as their means of evaluation (Thomas, 2006). Skills for
195

example, were determined largely by the extent to which they were able to utilise the
skills in their jobs. Recognition of skills was determined through the assessment
process and feedback in Ministry Y. Recognition when defined as portability and
career progress was determined either by personal experience of progression or by
trainees understanding of the job market for the skills which seemed to be derived
from perceptions and information for peers. Self confidence naturally was determined
by their personal experience of increased self confidence.
Organisational context also seemed to play a key role in trainees determination of the
value of Industry Training. Many trainees, for example, were encouraged to undergo
Industry Training because other work colleagues had done the training, giving a sense
of it being valuable within the organisational context. The following quotations
convey this role of the organisational context in determining value:
Department X:
Respondent 32
Because quite a lot of people in my team who are trainers have completed the
training. So it seemed worthwhile for me to do it as well.
Ministry Y:
Respondent 44
And also I was a new manager, and I felt that all, pretty much all the rest of
the managers who had been around for a long time had done something like
that, something similar to it. And I did not want to be behind them. I wanted to
have as much information and knowledge as they did.
Respondent 47
A couple of the other managers had done them previously, and had said that
they were quite good. So we said we would give it a go. So yes, previous
people who had done the course had said it was worthwhile. So that was good;
thats what pretty much made up my mind.
Organisational context then is a filter through which value was assigned to Industry
Training. In the case of Ministry Y, due to the large numbers of managers who had
done the programme over time, and the infrastructure and communication that had
developed around it, the organisation was able to build up a community of practice.
Therefore there is common valuing of Industry Training; as a result, employees then
196

believed it to be valuable. For Department X, while they may have had a large
number of trainees, they were pursuing different programmes largely in individual
silos. In some cases, trainees commenced programmes without the knowledge of their
managers. This, coupled with the lack of communication and infrastructural support,
meant that no community of Industry Training practice developed. This then led to
undervaluing and other challenges with Industry Training here.

These findings support the Critical HRD/Stakeholder perspective on evaluation, as the

limited range of quantitative indicators preferred under the Strategic HRD/VET
perspective, do not reflect the trainees perspectives identified here. The use of
qualitative data allows for a richer understanding of VET value through the eyes of
trainees. Further, the value of Industry Training to trainees does not exist as external
facts outside of their experience; rather outcomes - whether beneficial or not - are part
of the employee experience. Another crucial finding here is that the critical role
played by the workplace structure and culture to either enhance or minimise the value
of VET for trainees, as the workplace community, including quality of management
and work relationships with co-workers and mentors, all impact the quality of the
learning experience, and directly shape trainees perceptions.
How are these values created for State Sector trainees?

The quality of the HR Infrastructure provided by the organisation was the single
definitive creator of value for State Sector trainees interviewed. This supports other
views on the importance on workplace quality in fostering workers development
(Fenwick, 2006; Ryan, 2007). Specifically, trainees identified a) the level of
organisational support, the alignment between the training and their jobs, and b) the
quality of the training and assessment process as the specific factors that helped to
make the training valuable to them, or conversely, to de-value the training. Trainees
from Ministry Y expressed very high levels of satisfaction with the quality of the HR
Infrastructure provided. On the other hand, trainees in Department X experienced a
number of deficiencies in the HR Infrastructure, which posed numerous challenges for
them.

197

a) Level of Organisational /Alignment between training and job function

Being able to access support to complete the training was identified by trainees as a
major factor in creating value from Industry Training engagement. In Ministry Y,
trainees identified their managers, training mentors and their peers as the main
sources of support, as exemplified in these quotations:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 50
I guess the support that we used was that we found amongst our own group.
So there were another couple of managers that were going through and were
doing it with me And competition helped too. Were that competitive. We
are all managers at the same level so it was easy to say, Ive done this one and
this one. It would kind of motivate you a little bit to get yourself together.
Respondent 44
So if Im home, I can ring up a support person, or one of the people who have
been on it to just guide me as to where we should be going.
Respondent 47
There was always somebody you were able to ring up if you had got into a
situation where you werent sure which direction to go in with a certain
question or something like that.
Respondent 46
Just supporting the time away from the office to be able to collate
information and to undertake the assessment. Also contact with other
managers within the region that had undertaken the qualification, and, you
know, providing that sort of support as well.
The nature of trainees job roles also assisted in creating value from Industry
Training; these statements from trainees highlight this:
Department X:
Respondent 33
Well, I am the health and safety rep. And they offered if I wanted to do it, so
I said yes.

198

Respondent 34
At the time, I was in a Customer Service role. So just to learn some new
skills in that area.
The job role then creates value in terms of creating access to the training in the first
place. In other words, trainees were able to get the opportunity to pursue the training
as it was deemed to be related to their role. Additionally, the job role creates the
opportunity to use the skills acquired. Conversely, trainees from Department X noted
that they had challenges completing their on-the-job assessments as part of the
qualifications, because they did not carry out those task requirements as a routine part
of their normal job function. The following quotation from a trainee in this
organisation highlights this point:
Department X:
Respondent 32
You have to be in the role to really be able to achieve it. Or you have to be in
an organisation that can create the opportunities for you, as opposed to it being
so that if I wanted to get into training, I would need to do these things. But you
cant do that. You have to be virtually in it, in a training role, or have access to
it to achieve the qualification.
A number of issues are raised here. First, the marketing of Industry Training as being
convenient form of training because of its work-based nature is overstated (What do
we mean by skills, 2007). There is still an organisational requirement to carefully
select the appropriate Industry Training programme, and to ensure alignment with the
organisation and job functions. Second, although much of the learning that takes place
through these Industry Training programme was self-directed, for the full learning
benefits to be realised, organisational support is vital. In Ministry Y, the support was
provided through various sources peers, managers, former trainees, mentors,
assessors, facilitators. The support infrastructure then is an integral part of the
community of Industry Training practice that had been created in this organisation.
The presence of the infrastructure also creates value in another way. Its very presence
communicates that the training is valuable to the organisation, as such an extensive
infrastructure would not be attached to something that was not valuable.

199

The findings here again support the Critical HRD/Stakeholder perspective, which
argues that the support role played by stakeholders, particularly managers, cannot be
assumed or taken for granted. Rather, it has to be understood, defined, agreed and
actively pursued. Additionally, whether VET provides beneficial outcomes to trainees
is highly dependent on the workplace culture and managerial decision making to
foster and develop the required support mechanisms, and whether the extensive
managerial expertise exists to develop these mechanisms, as VET, unlike other forms
of training, require additional expertise and administrative processes, (such as
assessment management), to facilitate its smooth execution.
b) Quality of Training and assessment process
Trainees in both organisations identified the nature of the training delivery and
assessment as being important to them. This created value for them in that it either
hindered or facilitated their learning. In Ministry Y, all the trainees expressed a high
level of satisfaction with how the training was both delivered and assessed, and with
the quality of training facilitation, as seen in the following statements:
Ministry Y:
Respondent 44
Its who the facilitators are, and the fact that they are very familiar with our
business. They know what our managers have to deal with on a day to day
basis, means the content is very relevant; its not just book knowledge being
taught. Its actually make it really practical and useful. They use the precoursework that they ask them to do. So it makes the whole process relevant.
Respondent 46
The trainers are excellent. It is a small group always. When I did my first
one, you know, the leadership development programme, mostly there were
about 7 or 8 people, and the best thing is it is more about _______, not about
you know normally you get stuff which may not be relevant to a Ministry.
Like you go to some professional development you may have courses that they
may not be directly relevant to your own job. These courses had been relevant
to our jobs.
Respondent 43
For me personally, I value the level of communication, and I found it to be an
excellent way to do an assessment. And I was relaxed and the assessor was
excellent. So for I appreciated that that was the way that I could do it, rather
than sitting by myself completing a number of different modules. Not knowing
whether I was on the right track or not.
200

In Department X, all the trainees identified several weaknesses in the assessment

process, including delays in having assessments completed or lack of assessors, as
well as with the quality of training materials provided. The following quotations
capture these views:
Department X:
Respondent 33
Not yet. Ive only done 3 whole papers so far, and only one of those have
been marked, because there is no assessor, so I dont know if I am doing it
right as yet.
Respondent 35
I would never recommend that anyone do this training now. There are no
assessors. I was just left on my own with no support, no guidance.
Respondent 32
But you know, maybe because of my background. Maybe to someone else..I
guess the whole course really is a bit laid back. Some of the materials, things
that you find are just wrong or not described in the right way. And some times
it is quite repetitive; they are asking you to do the same thing over and over
again.
This respondent went on further to describe the challenges she experienced in
having her assessments completed due to the time constraints facing the
assessor:
So she has to travel all over the country taking workshops and she is having
to mark all of them, which takes a long time. So you are having to hand in
your next assignment without knowing how well you did in the first one. So
you dont know if you are on the right track.
The delays in assessment were viewed, not only as a lack of organisational support,
but also seemed to affect their perception of whether learning was taking place. This
is a reflection on the minimalistic approach to providing Industry Training support by
the organisation. This then is likely to be a contributing factor to the low completion
rate for Industry Training in the organisation. The use of completion rate can then be a
reasonable proxy for quality of training and training support, at least to some degree.
Success in Industry Training appears to be dependent on decision makers taking into
account stakeholders needs, in particular trainees how they learn and what support
they require.

201

From a Critical HRD/stakeholder programme theory, attention to pedagogical needs

of trainees is an important input, in order for trainees to derive value from VET. It is
only through the acknowledgement and provision of that support that mutually
beneficial gains can be realised from VET investment. Again, the data here reiterates
the need for resources to be allocated and attention paid to the assessment process
attached to Industry Training. This indicates a dependence of trainees on managerial
know-how and willingness to make the necessary investment.

Synthesis

There were marked differences in the implementation of Industry Training in these

two state sector organisations. From the data, there are some interesting trends worth
noting. The first is that successful VET implementation appears largely dependent on
following the normative training models of needs analysis, delivery and evaluation.
To further elaborate, the inputs associated with success are the presence of an Industry
Training champion to drive the implementation, detailed training needs analysis and
design, communication and buy-in, learning/job alignment, systems for learning
transfer, mechanisms for continuous evaluation, and stakeholders involvement at all
stages. These factors were present in Ministry Y. These inputs then resulted in
outcomes that were mutually beneficially from the point of view of the managers and
trainees interviewed skills utilisation, learning culture, increased training access and
equity, self confidence and staff engagement. The converse is also true. As seen in
Department X, when these inputs are absent, the benefits from Industry Training are
more limited, particularly for managers. This then does not reflect the Strategic
HRD/VET logic, which sees VET engagement as being automatically beneficial to all
stakeholders (Reform and Change in Industry Training Conference, 1992).
Engagement or high levels of enrolment do not equate to realising the expected
benefits. The Critical HRD/Stakeholder logic better reflects the implementation
experiences in these organisations, in that a process of negotiation and understanding
of stakeholders needs and interests bring about mutually beneficial outcomes for
stakeholders. Without that negotiation however, benefits are not realised, or are quite
limited.
Below in Figure 7.1 is a logic model, based on the data:
202

Figure 7.1 Programme Logic for Value Creation from Industry Training: State
Sector Perspective

Problem
Identification
& Business
Planning

IMPROVED
SERVICE
QUALITY

Industry
Training
suitability
assessment
(incl. cost

Needs
Assessment

Training Plan
implementation
(goals, design,
delivery,
assessment

Skilled and
engaged staff
Skill recognition
Learning Culture
Self Confidence
Increased access to
learning

Learning
Transfer/Job
roles
performed

Evaluation
(surveys,
employee
evaluation,
coaching
sessions, quality
assurance

How did these state sector stakeholders evaluate the impact of Industry Training?
They did so subjectively, and this was driven by the different value context within the
respective organisations. Value context here means the dominant value that was
attached to Industry Training within the organisation, which created a context for its
implementation. These two organisations had very different value contexts, which
resulted in differences in approaches to evaluation. For Ministry Y, Industry Training
was more highly valued, and this was driven by the champions. This translated in the
development of organisational capacity to implement Industry Training. Also, this led
to implementation of evaluative practices, as organisations will not measure what they
do not value highly. It can be postulated that due to the higher premium placed on
Industry Training, there was a greater motivation to evaluate, leading to the greater
emphasis placed on formal evaluation. Evaluation for this organisation was also
pluralistic and inclusive, in that it sought to involve the needs and perspectives of all
stakeholders. Both qualitative and quantitative data are utilised, but there was a
greater reliance on qualitative data, which aligns with the stakeholder approach to
evaluation. There was a reliance also on stakeholders experience to evaluate training
203

impact, particularly among trainees, but there was a concerted effort to integrate
individuals training experiences into the formal evaluation system. Department X
had a contrasting experience with Industry Training engagement, which was largely
mismanaged, and resulted in little benefit from both managerial and trainee
perspectives. The flaws in their experience relate to the absence of the factors which
facilitated Industry Training success for Ministry Y. These factors include the lack of
analysis of Industry Training suitability, absence of clear goals for Industry Training,
and the lack of consistent provision of workplace support, including systems to
facilitate assessment and skills use.

204

CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this chapter, a synthesis of the perspectives across all the stakeholder groups is
presented. The discussion is essentially a synopsis of what the multi-level analytical
approach taken in this research reveals about VET evaluation. The utility of the
analytical framework developed for this research is also examined.

Overall, differences among stakeholders were based on their perceptions and

experiences of success or failure in Industry Training engagement as well as
organisational and sector characteristics.

As a reminder, the premises for doing this research and for the multi-level approach
are highlighted:
-

The VET policy rhetoric in the main fails to make the distinction among
the various types of VET initiatives, which poses major challenges in its
evaluation. This is addressed by focusing this research on one type of VET
initiative upgrade training.

All stakeholders who are engaged in VET utilise some mechanism for
evaluating their engagement.

A better understanding of the evaluation of VET policy practice could be

unearthed through a multi-level analysis involving a wider cross-section of
VET stakeholders.

The literature reveals two competing paradigms of how VET policies

create value and ought to be evaluated, based on a number of assumptions
and criticisms. However, these have remained under-researched,
particularly as it relates to the roles and experiences of VET stakeholders
in these processes of evaluation and outcome creation.

This research then sought to address these concerns about VET evaluation from a
multiple stakeholder perspective.

What emerges from the data is a very complex picture. On one hand, there is clearly
evidence of some degree of shared, collective understanding of VET evaluation. This
205

is evidenced by the fact that most stakeholders identified common values they derived
or expected to be gained from VET engagement. There were however differences
among stakeholders in how these were defined and evaluated. These values a) skills
utilisation, b) quantitative outputs, c) career progression/wage effects, d)
portability/recognition, e) equity/access goals - will each be examined.

DISCUSSION OF COMMON VALUES IDENTIFIED

a) Skill Utilisation (Retention/Capacity Building)

Skill utilisation was the only value identified by the majority of interviewees and all
stakeholder groups. This represents a shared, collective understanding of one of the
purposes of Industry Training. Also all stakeholders, to varying degrees, relied on
their experience or the experience or observation of others to determine whether or
not this was achieved.

For policymakers and industry interest groups, there was the tendency to either
evaluate skills utilisation based on stories (commonly identified as success cases in
official documents) and individual experiences. They also evaluated using numbers of
trainees and employers engaged as a proxy for utilisation. For managers and
employers, there is a marked difference between those who deemed themselves to be
successful users of VET and those who did not. For successful users, skills utilisation
was determined through the collation of qualitative performance information. The
type of qualitative data varied from organisation to organisation, but commonly
included the collection and use of performance information from a variety of
organisational stakeholders. They also relied on their experiences and observation of
skills use within the organisation or work unit to assess this outcome. For trainees,
they relied on their individual experience of utilising the skills acquired to determine
this value. Within the Strategic HRD/VET logic, skills utilisation is deemed to be
adequately reflected by quantitative indicators such as number of employers engaged.
Based on human capital theory, it is argued employers who are driven by the need to
focus on bottom line issues would not be engaged, if they were not deriving
instrumental benefits (Acemoglu, 2003; Becker, 1962). However, from the data, it can
be concluded that such data can only reflect a partial reality. Evidence from
206

Department X for example, (an organisation which described itself as an unsuccessful

user) highlighted that it is possible for organisations to engage in Industry Training
without having skills utilisation as an explicit end result. Also, from a multiple
stakeholder view, the use of these kinds of quantitative data to evaluate skill
utilisation does not reflect how most stakeholders actually evaluate. This is because
skill utilisation is a value that is experienced, and most stakeholders define it within
the parameters of their context, their experience or the experience of others. This also
supports the findings from Grubb and Ryan (199) that the use of sophisticated
methods to assess skills use and productivity are generally not employed by
organisations, perhaps due to the complexity of these measures. This then leaves
stakeholders to rely on other simpler, interpretive mechanisms in order to assess VET
value.

This then poses an ontological question for researching skill utilisation, whether skills
utilisation as a VET outcome can only be known through the interpretive experience
of stakeholders. At the micro-level of organisations, a qualitative, inclusive approach
appears to unearth more in-depth and richer data on the value of skills utilisation.
Within the organisations, it is a shared understanding and experience, but this is
obviously bounded by the organisational context. Therefore, it represents an
organisational reality, not a macro-level reality. Also, at the organisational level, there
are usually fewer stakeholders interests to satisfy, and often higher levels of
consensus on how performance is defined (Propper & Wilson, 2003). For policy
makers and industry interest groups, the stakes are different. As organisations only
have a limited range of stakeholders interests to satisfy, evaluation can be more
utilitarian. As seen for successful user organisations, formal evaluations were shaped
by the kind of data they valued for organisational decision-making, such as quality of
customer service and job performance. For policymakers and industry interest groups,
there is a wider range of stakeholders interests to take into account. However, as seen
in the data, not all stakeholders are viewed as having equal levels of influence, which
aligns with the thinking of other policy evaluation commentators (Dixit, 2002;
Wholey, 2001). In the VET policy literature and Critical HRD literature, the
discussion has not focused on the vested interests of policy makers and especially
industry interest groups, and how this impacts VET evaluation. Due to these vested
interests, the use of both trainee numbers and interpretive experience were both
207

subject to political filtering. So, for example, many stories-cum-case studies represent
the political perspective of the stakeholder, such as cases of successful skills use. This
political filtering is shaped by the need to justify VET spend, and to encourage greater
investment. While there is some support for the use of stories in VET and wider
policy evaluation, there is the need for caution against the biased selection of
favourable stories of success, and the omission of others (Brinkerhoff, 2006; Thomas,
2006). This confirms concerns within the policy literature, which notes the
politicisation of evaluation which can be harmful to evaluation quality and use (W.
Dunn, 2004; Fischer, 2007).

Another major finding is that skills utilisation is not only valued by employers and
managers, but also by workers/learners. This runs counter to the Critical HRD logic,
which views the performance orientation towards skills as being the purview of
managerial perspectives, and potentially exploitative of employees (Antonacpoulou,
1999; Bolton & Houlihan, 2007a; Valentin, 2006). Trainees interviewed were as
concerned about the use of skills as managers, so much so there was the tendency to
view training that could not be used on their jobs as useless. One interpretation is that
these workers had been brainwashed into this mode of thinking through the
organisational culture. However, this assumes that workers possess no capacity for
individual agency and thought (Heyes & Stuart, 1996). Another conclusion then is
that the polarisation of workers versus employers/managerial interests in the Critical
HRD literature is too narrow and does not always reflect the reality (Fenwick, 2005).

There is also the challenge of data inconsistency, in that different stakeholders utilise
different data sources to evaluate the same outcome. Skills utilisation is measured in
so many varied ways across the organisations researched from using performance
evaluations, customer feedback, staff engagement surveys, to coaching and
development reviews. This is further complicated by the fact that sometimes the
evaluation of the training was only indirectly determined. This confirms one of
Holton and Naquins HRD evaluation models, where they argue for the possibility
that organisations do not use the normative HRD evaluation methods, for example
ROI (Holton & Naquin, 2005). Instead organisations are guided by the decisions they
need to make. In addition, from this data, not only are organisations managers guided
by what data they need to make decisions, they are also guided by their values.
208

Decisions are driven by values. Those values can be rooted in rational economic
choices, such as skills use, or service quality, but it is not necessarily limited to that.
The other challenge is that all organisations involved in VET may not even make any
deliberate attempt at any formal evaluation, as seen among some of the research
respondents.

This is problematic at the policy level where macro-level evaluations are needed to
guide policy choices. Therein lies the practical attraction of using quantitative
performance indicators. However, most of the quantitative indicators typically used,
such as trainee numbers, provide little insight on the extent to which VET is utilised.
This is an on-going challenge for the field of policy evaluation, whether it can escape
its positivists roots and its bias for over-simplified quantification, and whether these
limitations have to be accepted, given the fact that some aspects of policy
performance defy measurement but perhaps have no other acceptable means of
evaluation (Dixit, 2002; Gregory, 2004).

Hence, the case can be made for the use of different kinds of measurement, perhaps
the development of a skill utilisation index. Research in this area is growing but is at
present limited to broad-based perceptions on skills use and quantitative analyses
attempting to assess information technology skills use (Downey & Zeltman, 2009).
Particularly for the service sector, the development of such an index would not be a
simple task. Care would have to be taken as to which skills would be the focus, and
some common definition of the skills sets in question would be needed in order to
have comparability. Bearing in mind these challenges, surveys could be developed
targeting managers and trainees, which examine: incidence, frequency of skill use,
and factors that inhibit or encourage skill use, such as managerial support, alignment
to job all factors identified across stakeholders as pertinent to skill utilisation.

In summary, in examining the findings on skill utilisation against the analytical

framework (see Table 4.2 for a summary of the framework), a number of conclusions
emerge. First, the findings negate the performance/instrumental dichotomy, as VET
(when defined as upgrade training) is not viewed as exploitative nor as failing to be
learner-centred. Second is that for skill utilisation to be realised, it requires high levels
of attention to pedagogical concerns, quality and administration of assessment
209

mechanisms, and specificity of training content and design for the workplace
environment. As a result, this places responsibility for VET success in the hands of
employers/managers. This poses a serious policy challenge; if employers/managers
have the greatest impact on VET success, the issue of how to influence
employer/managerial behaviour becomes critical. Funding, in keeping with Critical
HRD/Stakeholder logic, may create perverse incentives for some Industry interest
groups, such as ITOs, to increase numerical participation, but it does not appear from
the data to influence employer/manager behaviour in terms of their support for and
skills in implementing Industry Training (Wolf, 2011). Additionally, this outcome is
mutually beneficial across stakeholder groups, but the extent to which
employers/managers play a supportive role determines the extent to which this value
is realised by all stakeholders. Lastly, the reliance of skill utilisation on the workplace
specificity of training material and its application, can run counter to other VET
outcomes, such as portability of qualifications in the wider labour market. The fact
that Industry Training is largely upgrade training however, means that the real focus
of training is to upskill current employees, and not to increase portability. This
however begs the question as to whether state investment in VET of this nature
produces sufficient public good to justify the provision of training subsidies.

b) Quantitative Outputs

One of the most fascinating findings is that quantitative outputs as a value derived
from VET is not shared across stakeholders. Approaches to quantitative outputs
among stakeholders can be viewed as a continuum. Stakeholders who are closer to the
policy action (such as policy makers and ITOs) appear to rely more heavily on
quantitative outcomes as a major VET outcome. In fact, debates about quantitative
outcomes appear to be policy-speak, a debate among policymakers and industry
interest groups. Other Industry Interest groups that are key but not necessarily major
policy decision makers are more inclined to be sceptical of quantitative outcomes,
even hostile towards them. For employers/managers at the micro-level of
organisations, these are not a central focus, particularly among successful users. Here
the collection of quantitative data is to some degree an administrative function
required by the VET system, rather than an end game in itself or a way of determining
value. Employees do not use specific numbers of trainees to determine the value of
210

Industry Training. However the participation of their peers in Industry Training seems
to influence their determination of the value of training. The fact that several persons
within an organisation or work unit had undergone the training created a sense of
valuing. This however is more about the culture of the organisation, the shared
experience, and the development of a community of practice around Industry Training
created by having a certain number of trainees within the organisation, rather than a
focus on quantitative outputs per se.

The Strategic HRD/VET Logic of focusing on quantitative outputs as proxies for

numerous VET outcomes is not totally nullified, based on the research findings. For
example, among successful users of Industry Training, the large percentage of
trainees within the organisation (in two cases 100% of all employees) is associated
with building organisational capacity to deliver higher quality client and customer
service. Among successful users, there was also a clear link between provision for
learning need/ learning support and higher rates of qualification completion.
However, these quantitative indicators do not fully reflect a complete picture of the
state of Industry Training. As the data also revealed, large numbers of trainees do not
always indicate greater organisational capacity. Additional questions have to be asked
of the data surrounding issues such as training quality and use. In other words,
quantitative outcomes have to be critically examined, and one useful way is by
gaining insights from the stakeholders themselves.

Another important observation from the data is that the values identified by
stakeholders are in fact outputs rather than outcomes. This is in large part shaped by
the fact that the Industry Training system is assessed using a performance
management system rather than through evaluation as defined in the evaluation
literature. According to Davies (1999), and other commentators, performance
management systems within the policy sphere are about the definition of measurable
results and the accounting for resources and resource allocation based in these results
(Ball & Halwachi, 1987; Davies, 1999; Ruppert, 1995; Thomas, 2006). He, along
with other commentators, characterise performance management systems as being a
continuous part of the management infrastructure, the purpose of which is to answer
the question of what policy outputs are produced. Evaluation on the other hand
normally occurs as a one off event, and is aimed at answering questions relating to
211

policy impacts and how these are produced (Mohan et al., 2006). The prevalence of
the use of quantitative indicators to assess the Industry Training system heavily
influences how several of the stakeholder groups examine its value. This reflects
assertions made by Barnetson and Cutright (2000), where they argue that performance
indicators become normative assumptions that shape what issues stakeholders
examine and how they examine them. This influence is seen in the identification of
the same set of values from Industry Training engagement across almost all
stakeholder groups.

Not only do most stakeholder groups define VET value in terms of outputs, there is
also an underlying assumption of a causal, linear relationship between outputs and
outcomes (Davies, 1999). This is particularly reflected in policymakers, industry
interest groups and some of the managerial perspectives. This is identified in the
literature as one of the risks of the new public management performance systems
adopted in New Zealand and elsewhere, where relationships between outputs and
outcomes are over simplified. For example, when examining the skills and skills
utilisation, they can either be considered outputs or inputs. If viewed as outputs, then
they are an end result of VET engagement. However, if the VET system is expected
to contribute to wider outcomes, then these are then inputs to be used along with
others to create outcomes such as higher levels of labour productivity for example.
The latter the delivery of outcomes then presents much more complex
understanding of outcome creation, in this case how skill and its use interact with
other inputs to deliver outcomes. It is this that policymakers and other stakeholders
need to aim to understand, rather than erroneously assuming VET outputs
automatically lead to desired outcomes, or aiming to delineate the impact of VET in
isolation of its context, which is next to impossible.
Overall, these findings support the Critical HRD/Stakeholders critique on the
limitations of the Strategic HRD/VET logic. The use of these quantitative indicators
cannot determine whether performance/instrumental or developmental concerns are
being met, with the exception of assessing ITO performance and providing
justification for state funding, which is potentially a perverse effect of state funding.
Notwithstanding, the data provides some indication that completion rates can be
linked to attention to pedagogical needs of learners, as well as provision of general
212

support for learning. Funding impact on encouraging VET participation appears to be

limited, as successful VET users in the research engaged in training, outside of
Industry Training; however, the provision of subsidies served to increase the scope of
training provision. This presents a major policy question of whether state funding
should be targeted at organisations that are already investing in training, and whether
this sufficiently addresses equity and access outcomes to warrant such funding.

c) Career Progression/Wage Effects

Career progression is another value that was commonly identified across all
stakeholder groups. However, there were differences in its definition and evaluation.
For policymakers and industry interest groups, it is defined as both learning
progression and wage effects. At the organisational level, the size of the organisation
appeared to determine how career progression was evaluated. In larger organisations
with well-defined career paths and career development planning, career progression
was viewed as upward mobility. For the small organisation, it was defined as job
enrichment, rather than as upward mobility. This is an important fact to note, as
within the Strategic HRD/VET logic, career progression and attendant wage effects
are viewed as one of the major outcomes expected of VET policies (Ingram &
Neumann, 2006; W. Smits, 2008; Stasz et al., 2004). However, such a view can be
problematic. Wage effects do not operate in isolation, but are dependent on the
organisational context. From this data, trainees are likely to experience greater wage
effects when they are employed in larger organisations that have and encourage clear
career paths, as seen in Company B and Ministry Y. Therefore, the wage effects are
not only the result of VET engagement, but a result of the organisational context. The
other observation is that perhaps viewing career progression as wage effects and
upward mobility does not reflect the experiences of career mobility in the SME
context. In SMEs, scope for upward mobility, by virtue of the small size of their
organisational structure, would be limited, as evidenced in Company A. Also SMEs
are likely to have to contend with smaller profit margins, which would impact their
ability to pay higher wages. This is important for the New Zealand context, as well as
economies characterised by large numbers of SMEs. The use of upward mobility and
wage progression as the only indicators of success of VET, would result in a failing
grade for VET engagement in SMEs. However, by also focusing on job enrichment or
213

enlargement, this may provide a more holistic view of career progression.

Additionally, from the data, trainees in larger organisations are more likely to
progress to higher levels of learning, and then only when this is actively facilitated by
the organisation. In small organisations, it is possibly less likely to trainees to
progress to higher levels of learning, either because the costs are prohibitive, or the
organisation itself does not require it. This however does not signify that the training
is not useful, simply because it did not lead to higher levels of learning. This provides
additional insight on the peculiarities of training and VET in particular in the SME
setting, which is often neglected in the literature, where normative training models
and practices are those within the large organisational context (Kitching, 2008a;
Kitching & Blackburn, 2002). These differences then can only be unearthed through
the use of the multi-level analysis, bearing in mind the differences in stakeholders
characteristics and context.

When these values are examined against the analytical framework, it is observed
again that the two paradigms are not always competing, and that both developmental
and performance/instrumental needs can be served through VET engagement.
However, the data also points to the context that would provide for these needs to be
realised, which is largely shaped by the role played by employers/managers,
organisational and job design, provision of learning support, and organisational size.
Funding has no influence directly on these characteristics, although it can assist in
offsetting employers costs. The use of career progression and wage effects can be
used as measure of VET success to some extent, but its absence should not be
translated to mean that VET is unsuccessful or not unbeneficial, as other value such as
improved job performance, is an equally valued benefit for all stakeholders. Also,
career progression and wage effects from the data are not a direct result of VET
completion, but emanate from the career structures within organisations.

d) Portability/Recognition

Within the Strategic HRD/VET logic, portability and skill recognition is inextricably
linked with the outcomes of career progression. From the research findings, for some
stakeholders, this linkage is crucial. However, given the variations among
stakeholders in defining these concepts, they are discussed here separately.
214

From the data, it appears that there was some confusion among respondents
surrounding the outcomes of portability and recognition, both in terms of definition
and evaluation. At one end of the spectrum, policy makers and ITOs adhere to the
belief that the achievement of qualifications and unit standards equate with the
acquisition of skills. In other words, qualifications signal and certify skills, and make
them portable in the labour market. This reflects the Strategic HRD/VET paradigm,
where qualifications render skills both visible and capable of being evaluated in
quantifiable terms (Hillage & Pollard, 1998; Qualifications and lifelong learning:
OECD policy brief, 2007).

For other industry interest groups, they share a similar definition of portability as
career mobility but scepticism abounds as to whether qualifications signal skills.
These criticisms centre on the confused signals to employers caused by the
proliferation of Industry Training qualifications, and the poor quality of assessments
and training which does not lead to trainees actually acquiring skills in some cases. Or
in other cases, the criticism was that Industry Training was sometimes so
organisational-specific that its portability to the wider market place was limited.
These assessments were however arrived at based on interviewees experience or the
experience of other colleagues. There is then a tension between official quantitative
VET performance data and practitioners knowledge and experience. This also
reflects the tension between the Strategic HRD/VET paradigm and the Critical
HRD/Stakeholder logic. For these industry interest groups representatives, issues
relating to organisational politics and power were seen to impact training delivery, for
example, whether care would be taken to adequately train and adhere to quality
assurance standards, or to ensure that learners received adequate theoretical as well as
practical knowledge. These arguments echo debates in the VET literature on the
distinction between education and training, and the arguments about whether training
should equip learners to both know how to perform tasks as well as why they should
be performed in a particular way (Hager, 2000, 2004.). From a multiple stakeholder
perspective, there are differing views on the definition of quality VET provision, and
how quality of VET provision can be assured. This significantly impacts the extent to
which the value of portability and recognition of nationally recognised qualifications
is perceived among across stakeholders in the labour market (Heise, 1998; Kis, 2005).
215

At the organisational level, there are two types of portability that emerge from the
data internal labour market and external labour market portability. Among the larger
successful user organisations, career pathways aligned to qualifications facilitated the
portability of training in the internal labour market. Managers from successful user
organisations also expressed the belief that the qualifications gained within their
organisations were portable to the wider sector, whether the tourism or state sector.
However, there was no indication they used Industry Training qualifications gained in
other organisations as a signal for skills of potential workers; some even expressed
scepticism as to whether the quality of qualifications gained elsewhere could be
guaranteed. There is an underlying tension revealed here. On one hand, managers
from successful user organisation exhibit pluralist concerns, this time in relation to the
labour needs of the wider sector of which their organisation is a part. On the other
hand, the fact that they only appear to place their faith in the quality of their own
assessments and qualifications speaks to both the specific nature of the training
provided, as well as the quality assurance concerns raised by some industry interest
groups.

Among trainees, there was no consistency with regard to the value of portability and
recognition. Some expressed the belief that the qualifications will or had been
portable, some using their own career progression as a means of arriving at this
evaluative judgement. Others viewed the certification of their skills as valuable in and
of itself. In these cases, it is the qualifications that served as the indicator of
recognition. Others highlighted the specificity of training as being useful in terms of
equipping them to perform their jobs better, but of limited value in terms of external
portability. This however was an opinion expressed, rather than a limitation that they
had personally experienced. These learners had worked with the same organisation for
several years, and expressed no plans to leave the organisation.

There are several underlying issues and questions that emerge in relation to the
recognition and portability outcome. These are important to address, as the portability
of qualifications and the establishment of a national system of skills recognition was
one of the main reasons for the Industry Training policy, and other competency-based
qualifications frameworks in the first place (Field, 1991; Reform and Change in
216

Industry Training Conference, 1992). The first issue is that quality of assessment is
critical, as trust in the quality of assessment is important in establishing validity in the
minds of stakeholders. Second, there is a tension as to whether the degree of
specificity of Industry Training affects qualifications portability. This is not an easy
question to answer. On one hand, from the data, successful user organisations ensure
that the qualifications meet their specific needs, and are aligned to their jobs and
services offered. Learners from these organisations also value the specificity of
training, as it facilitates ease of learning and transfer to jobs. If training is specific,
does this mean that it is therefore not transferable in the wider labour market? This it
seems would depend on the qualifications in question. In these organisations, the
qualifications, while having organisation-specific components, also had a number of
generic components, for example, the First Line Supervisory Management
programmes in both Ministry Y and Company B.

More importantly, in terms of evaluation, very little is actually known about the
extent to which the outcome of portability has been achieved, even though this is a
much touted benefit of Industry Training, and competency-based qualifications
systems as a whole. Moreover, should portability be measured in terms of career
progression of trainees, as earlier noted, this could be problematic, as career
progression is both lateral and vertical, and is dependent on a number of factors, of
which qualifications is a single factor.

A multi-level analysis therefore reveals that there are variations in definitions of

portability. To some extent, this variation is context specific, based on the varied
characteristics of the organisation or sector or occupational group to which the
qualification is linked. For example, in larger organisations, internal portability may
be of greater significance to stakeholders; the converse may also be true for smaller
organisations, where external portability may be more valued, given the limited scope
within the organisation. Portability may also be more aligned with career progression,
where qualifications lead to greater access to other jobs or more expanded job roles.
Additionally, it may also be defined as learning progression, where the achievement
of qualifications lead to access to higher levels of learning. Finally, portability and
skill recognition may not always be viewed as one and the same thing, and may for
some stakeholders provide a distinctly different benefit.
217

This is not to suggest that one definition should be preferred over another. However,
the use of the term portability in the VET policy literature ought to be more
specifically defined, and its attendant complexities should be noted. Without this
acknowledgement, faulty and inadequate analyses on the value of portability will
continue to be made, especially in respect of how it is actually assessed by varying
stakeholders.

A discussion about portability and recognition would not be complete without an

examination of employability, and what light this research sheds on this issue. The
concept of employability is inextricably linked to portability, and the perceived need
for society to ensure that citizens can find sustainable employment in volatile labour
markets by being equipped through VET and other educational provision. One of the
limits of this research is that it is solely focused on work-based VET provision,
whereas much of the employability literature either does not make the distinction
between different types and purposes of VET provision, or is focused on the welfareto-work link or on the mutual recognition of qualifications trans-nationally (Peck &
Theodore, 2000; Ward, 2008). By focussing on work-based VET provision, this
research provides additional insight on the concept of employability in relation to this
specific type of VET provision vis--vis other kinds. This is a distinct point of the
analysis that needs more attention in the VET evaluation literature.

One of the important issues for VET policies geared at increasing employability is
whether such qualifications actually make its holders more attractive to employers
(Keep & Mayhew, 2004; Peck & Theodore, 2000; Sheldon & Thornwaite, 2005) . In
much of the literature, it is argued that VET provision does not have this effect, and
that employers will restrict VET provision to those areas where the acquisition of
certification is required by law or regulation, a view that was shared by some industry
interest group respondents (Ridoutt et al., 2005). The findings from this research do
not fully confirm these views, as employers were willing to invest in Industry
Training, and in areas outside of those with a regulatory requirement to train.
However, what is observed here is that the attractiveness of Industry Training tended
to be limited to VET that was internally provided. If the attraction of VET provision is
limited to that which is internally provided, and therefore more organisationally
218

specific, this has implications for the extent to which VET policy can impact
employability in the wider labour market.

Another issue is whether workers value VET provision as a tool to increase their
employability. The findings here confirm other research that employees do place
value on VET provision and its ability to increase their employability in the labour
market (Edgar & Geare, 2005). The data however provides greater light on trainees
perceptions of employability, as this valuing was not consistent among trainees.
Perceptions of employability were shaped by organisational context, occupational
group, field of training and sector characteristics. This supports the notion of
employability as a social construct, that is not solely defined by employee
characteristics and employment rates, but is affected by a series of demand trends, as
well as by the experiences and values of the stakeholders themselves (McQuid &
Lindsay, 2005; Moore, 2009).

The research also provides for a useful critique of the indicators of employability
commonly used, particularly within the Strategic HRD/VET logic. One such indicator
is the employment rate of VET graduates, and in the Industry Training context,
statistical analyses do reveal correlation between Industry Training qualifications and
higher rates of employment (Crichton, 2009). However, one of the challenges of using
this as an indicator of employability in the context of work-based training is that
trainees access this training by virtue of their status as members of the organisation
providing the training, therefore it follows that their employers are more likely to
retain their services in order to re-coup their training investment (Heise, 1998). Based
on the research findings, a more useful indicator of employability in relation to workbased training is to examine rate of retention, and in the case of larger organisations,
rate of career progression, a finding also confirmed in the literature as being
associated with work-based training (Hansson, 2008). Another indicator of
employability used in the literature is the extent to which VET qualifications facilitate
career change and movement in the wider labour market (Chappell et al., 2002).
Again, this research was not able to, nor designed to specifically examine the extent to
which trainees experienced this benefit in depth. However, there is some indication
that some trainees perceived this as being a benefit of VET engagement. However,
this is a problematic indicator for two reasons. As stated earlier, this perception varied
219

according to context; therefore employability and portability has to be analysed within

sectors and within occupational groups (Heise, 1998). The second reason is that, from
the data, it was observed that most of the Industry Training provision was designed to
equip trainees to perform their current job roles. While this could equip trainees for
other jobs within the labour market, it is not necessarily designed to do this, making
this indicator of limited utility.

e) Equity/Access/Second Chance Education/Self Confidence

These values have been placed together as they all relate to equity goals expected
from VET investment, which is to provide increased access to minority groups and
persons who had no previous success or limited success in the formal education
system (Industry Training 2005, 2005; Tertiary Education Strategy 2002-2007,
2002). Although this was valued across all stakeholder groups, there were significant
differences in how it was evaluated, and to some extent how it was defined.

For policy makers and some industry interest group stakeholders, it was measured
using quantitative indicators, such as numbers of women, Maori and Pacific Island
trainees, and numbers of trainees without previous qualifications. For stakeholders at
the organisational levels and some industry interest groups, it was measured
qualitatively. For them, it was more about how these categories of trainees were
transformed by the training, particularly in the area of their self confidence. It is
important to note that at the managerial level, only managers and employers from
successful user organisations identified this as valuable to them. Also these
organisations do collect the statistics on how many trainees fall in the various
minority groups, as they are required to submit this information to their respective
ITO as part of their application for training subsidies. However, managers in assessing
the impact of Industry Training in minorities would refer to the transformational
impact on their behaviour and performance, rather than the organisational statistics
collated.

This reveals again that the strict characterisation of managerial perspectives as

unitarist is a broad generalisation that may not be true in all cases (Fenwick, 2005).
Managers and employers may willingly embrace both developmental as well as
220

performance orientation towards HRD. In fact, from data, it is the organisations with
managers that embrace both, and are more pluralist in how they value Industry
Training, that define themselves as being successful training users. For successful
users, this balance in orientation is also evidenced in the fact that the selection of
potential trainees was based on job function, and not on level of qualifications. In all
of the case study organisations, for example, several of the trainees interviewed had
other tertiary qualifications including degrees. This reveals that the training aimed at
equipping learners to perform their jobs, a definitive instrumental perspective. This
also speaks to the specificity of the training offered as well, as it is obviously not
assumed that persons could have developed the skills in question from prior
qualifications. However, from the interviews, these managers were also concerned
about offering access to training to persons from these minority and disadvantaged
groups. This is evidenced by the level of encouragement trainees spoke of receiving,
as well as the level of pride exhibited by managers when they spoke of the progress of
these trainees.

Equity and access goals have been defined by several stakeholders, especially at the
policy and industry interest group levels as a correlated output-outcome pair, in that
increased access to VET is strongly correlated to increased equity, for example in
employment outcomes. This assumption, when examining the research data, is not
totally without merit, as several examples were cited by respondents of trainees from
disadvantaged groups in the labour marker improving their employment prospects
through Industry Training engagement. However, the data also revealed that there are
several other factors involved in creating these improved employment prospects,
including organisational size, culture, quality of training implementation and the
development of career pathways. Therefore the access equals equity logic is in fact
over-simplistic, and ignores a wide range of factors that contribute to social equity
outcomes.

In summary, from the examination of these outcomes in the context of the analytical
framework, it is seen again that VET engagement can produce mutually beneficial
outcomes, and can be simultaneously instrumental and developmental in orientation.
However, the role that employers/managers, HR champions and workplace
affordances play in bringing about equity outcomes is highlighted by the data.
221

EXAMINING THE USE OF THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

The analytical framework utilised in this research hinges on two competing logic for
understanding VET policy implementation, and this section addresses the utility of
this framework in analysing the data. The paradigms vary based on the competing
characteristics outlined in Table 8.1:

222

TABLE 8.1 COMPARATIVE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

Factors
Strategic HRD/VET
Critical HRD/
paradigm/logic
Stakeholder
paradigm/logic
Orientation
Performance/Instrumental Developmental
orientation; purports to be orientation; criticises VET
pluralist in outlook
policy as being unitarist in
outlook
Attention to Pedagogical
Lack of explicit attention; Attention to learners
Issues
assumption of learner
needs critical to learning
needs being met
and application
Roles of Stakeholders
Assumes stakeholders
Questions whether
role definitions are clear,
stakeholders role
performed consistently
definitions are always
and are complementary,
complementary, and
leading to shared outcomes carried out consistently.
for all. Employers
These roles may even be
engagement is seen as a
competing, to the
signal for the provision of detriment of some
workplace support for
stakeholders, especially
VET, including assessment trainees.
services etc.
Funding

Assumes that funding

incentivises stakeholder
engagement in ways that
produces mutually
beneficial outcomes

Questions whether funding

incentivises perverse
behaviour to the detriment
of beneficial outcomes

Evaluation

Preference for quantitative

performance indicators to
evaluate. Typical
indicators are completion
rates, number of trainees
by age, sex and race
Assumes Outcomes are
mutually beneficial for all
stakeholders. Typical
shared outcomes are skills,
portability of skills, higher
wages and productivity,
increased socio-economic
equity for disadvantaged
groups

Preference for qualitative

data to evaluate

Outcomes

Challenges the
assumptions of mutually
beneficial outcomes for all
stakeholders.

It is fair to say that the analytical framework has proved to be a useful lens through
which to analyse the data gathered. However, by using this lens to examine the data, it
223

has also unearthed that stakeholders perspectives on VET outcomes, and how they
evaluate those outcomes, do not necessarily fall neatly into either paradigm. This
highlights some of the gaps in the literature. The strategic HRD literature largely
focuses on performance/instrumental and unitarist purposes of training generally, with
almost no specific focus on VET (Boxall, 2003; Brinkerhoff, 2003; Velada et al.,
2007). The VET policy literature mainly reflects policymakers concerns. While the
focus is on pluralist concerns in the achievement of outcomes for multiple
stakeholders needs, this body of literature tends to focus on a narrower range of
stakeholders country, firms/employers and learners. Here, there is often the
assumption that stakeholders interests are adequately represented by quantitative
indicators such as wage effects, numbers of employers engaged and so forth (R. Hall
& Jones, 1999; Hanushek & Wobmann, 2007). Furthermore, there is limited attempt
at multi-level analyses, and when these occur, there is usually an omission of industry
interest groups as key stakeholders in the VET policy process. The Critical HRD
literature has its own assumptions about the power imbalance between workers and
managers, and the neglect of workers developmental needs and workplace rights
(Sambrook, 2009; Valentin, 2006). In addition, most of this literature focuses on
theoretical arguments, with limited empirical research supporting them. The
stakeholder theory literature certainly zeroes in on the involvement of multiple
stakeholders and their interests to improve policy implementation and evaluation
(Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2004; Walters et al., 2000). However, this body of research
focuses on smaller programmes, with limited application to the evaluation of VET,
and in particular workplace training (Beierle, 2002; Pahl-Wostl, 2002).

This research then assists in filling the gap in the literature, where there is a need for
better understanding of where VET policy, HRD practice and stakeholders concerns
intersect. The research confirms policymakers interests as reflected in the VET
literature. They attempt to balance pluralist concerns. However, these are not simply
employers versus learners needs, but there is also the concern for sector
development needs. Policymakers do rely on quantitative data as proxies for desired
outcomes, also confirming what was seen in the VET policy literature.

Among industry interest groups, the struggle between competing interests and
paradigms are very evident. Again these interests are not confined to the balancing of
224

workers and managerial interests, but there are also their individual and sector
interests as well. These interests vary from:
o The survival interests of ITOs, and the effect of funding incentives on
behaviour, which some view as sometimes leading to perversity such as the
proliferation of qualifications;
o Differences between the developmental versus performance/instrumental view
of VET, and how that leads to variations in definition of VET quality, such as
work based versus institution based, and balancing shorter term employers
needs versus longer term sector and learner development needs.

Again this reiterates the challenge of the politicisation of evaluation. The lesson here
is that different VET stakeholders, because of the interests they represent, can have
very different definitions of what constitutes VET success. This aligns with the policy
literature on the impact of incentives in influencing client behaviour. As it relates to
VET, it is not only the impact of incentives that has to be taken into account. Industry
interest groups tend to lean towards either supporting performance/instrumental or
developmental goals of VET, and this affects their own evaluation of VET outcomes.
Added to this, most industry interest groups rely on their own experiences and that of
their peers to assess whether the outcomes they value are being met.

At the organisational level, performance/instrumental VET outcomes are valued by

both managers/employers and trainees, which runs counter to the Critical
HRD/Stakeholder logic. In fact, from the data, the neglect of instrumental concerns
appears to lead to limited value being derived both for managers and trainees. There
are several reasons for this result. Firstly, Industry Training is specifically designed to
meet instrumental needs, particularly work based training. Where it is successfully
implemented, it is designed to be aligned to job performance. Training assessment is
designed to naturally and easily occur while trainees are carrying out their jobs. It is
primarily viewed as workplace learning. It may assist these stakeholders in other
ways, but it is firstly instrumental. Instrumental concerns on the part of successful
user organisations were also exemplified in their careful needs analysis, concerns for
service quality, and how they conduct formal evaluations. It can also be seen in their
cost benefit analysis, where training subsidies are carefully calculated in order to
determine the organisations level of engagement in Industry Training.
225

This focus on instrumentality is not necessarily detrimental to workers, as employees

value being able to do their jobs well. This desire to perform is not a factor that is
taken into account in the Critical HRD literature (Antonacopoulou, 1999). This also
supports other findings in the HRD literature that workers perceive training and other
HR functions as being beneficial to them (Guest, 1999). Furthermore, there is a need
for a more expansive definition of shareholder value of organisations beyond
profitability. For example, for the state sector, where profits are not a concern, the
delivery of quality public service is of benefit to clients, and the country at large.

The data also revealed that both managers/employers and learners have a concern for
developmental outcomes. To some extent, this is a by-product of instrumental
concerns. Among successful users, managerial instrumental concerns were tempered
by developmental concerns. This was seen in concerns for learner needs, tailoring
delivery to suit learning styles, provision of learning support, and career pathways in
some cases. But it could be viewed as a means to an end, where the meeting of
developmental needs were an exchange for their commitment to job performance.

This however does not explain decisions to invest in training of workers who have no
prior educational success. It would be perfectly rational not to invest in training such
persons, as there might be limited or no return on investment, and such trainees would
require more organisational support to assist them in their learning. However, among
all users, there was evidence of managers making the choice to encourage such
learners, and to believe in their potential to succeed at gaining Industry Training
qualifications. This certainly would not describe every case, indeed perhaps not most,
but it does show that managers can prioritise developmental concerns over
performance concerns. Notwithstanding, instrumentality supersedes developmental
concerns. The meeting of developmental needs always occurs within the context of
organisational priorities; for example, there are limits to what kinds of Industry
Training learners can access through their workplaces.

There is also a definite link between instrumentality and training specificity, and VET
success in this research. Successful users have higher degrees of tailoring to meet
their specific performance needs. This tension between development and performance
226

orientation of VET is also reflected in the on-going debates as to use of training

subsidies. Should government be funding be used to support organisational
instrumental needs or workers developmental needs? Does the meeting of
organisational instrumental needs also lead to workers development needs and wider
labour market skills needs? There are no simple answers to these questions, but what
the data points to is that, in order to gain mutually beneficial outcomes from work
based VET, there has to be an instrumental focus. From an implementation
perspective, instrumentality makes skill assessment easier. It also appears to set the
platform to manage the meeting of the mutual needs of both learners and
organisational development needs (Boxall, 1996).

HOW DO STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATE IMPACT OF VET POLICY?

Table 8.2 below summarises the response to the main research question: how do
stakeholders evaluate the impact of VET policies?
TABLE 8.2 Evaluation Methods Employed by Multiple Stakeholders of VET
Policymakers

Quantitative Performance
Indicators

Industry Interest Groups

Experience

Experience

Stories

Quantitative Performance
Indicators

Managers/Employers

Management Information of
choice

Trainees

Experience

Experience

The multi-level analysis used in this research reveals that, although stakeholders may
share an interest in similar outcomes to a large degree, there are differences in how
they evaluate the extent to which these have been met. Policymakers rely more

227

heavily on quantitative performance indicators as the main means of evaluation. This

reflects positivist influences, where value is viewed as observable facts that can be
understood in quantitative terms. Another argument that could be posed however is,
given the challenges in determining VET outcomes, particularly data challenges, these
indicators are proxies representing such outcomes. The indicators used by
policymakers also seek to reflect pluralist interests, as they measure impacts in
relation to both managerial (such as number of employers engaged) and workers
interests, particularly those from vulnerable groups. This is expected as governments
have vested interests in serving and in being seen as serving the multiple interests of
its citizens.

For industry interest groups, the use of quantitative performance indicators is shaped
by the demands of the performance monitoring framework developed at the policy
level. Additionally, both quantitative indicators and success stories are persuasive
devices

to

market

the

benefits

of

VET,

and

to

justify

VET

spend.

Managers/employers from successful user organisations utilise varied performance

information to evaluate the impact of VET investment, either directly or indirectly.
Trainees, along with all other stakeholders, rely on their experience as an evaluative
mechanism.

Whether experience or quantitative performance indicators or management

information is used by stakeholders, what is clear is that VET evaluation is a
subjective, value-laden process. This highlights that, the impacts of VET policy are to
a great extent experienced. Thus VET outcomes are highly contextualised, as
experiences are delimited by organisational boundaries, vested interests and
philosophical perspectives in relation to VET purposes.

NEW LOGIC

Finally, the data gathered from these multiple perspectives reveals that there is a
common programme logic of how valuable outcomes can be created for stakeholders.
This emerges from the fact that all successful user organisations had similar
characteristics that contributed to their achievement of outcomes both for managers
and trainees. Furthermore, the absence of these characteristics also seemed to
228

contribute to the limited success experienced by the unsuccessful user organisation. In

addition, many of these characteristics are also identified by the other stakeholder
groups interviewed. It is important to draw attention to the fact that the data reveals
that value from VET investment could be created for service sector organisations
whose jobs are not traditionally covered comprehensively by VET provision. Figure
8.1 outlines the logic.

229

FIGURE 8.1 REVISED PROGRAMME LOGIC FOR VET POLICY

IMPLEMENTATION

Government
invests in
skills/VET

Qualifications
are developed
and marketed

Employers/
managers (VET
Champions)
determine what
qualifications
meet their needs
& how best to
implement
through internal/
external
consultation

Evaluation takes place in varied

forms to determine whether:
- Organisational
performance goals are met
- Utilisation or training can
be improved
- Cost-effectiveness of
further VET engagement

The necessary
HR
infrastructure is
developed
including
training support
and
communication,
organisation of
work to support
learning
transfer

Training is
delivered and
assessed in
keeping with
quality
standards and
pedagogical
concerns

Managers and
Trainees use
skills acquired

Improved Service delivery

Motivated employees
Learning Culture fostered
Increased access to learning
and development

230

Perhaps the most vital input required to create favourable outcomes is the presence of
VET champions. At the sectoral level, this is dependent on the drive and capacity of
the ITO and other key industry participants who believe in the potential of VET
investment. At the organisational level, such champions are critical. They always
operate at a senior level within the organisation and have the capacity and authority to
influence behaviour within the organisation. Champions also possess a high level of
technical knowledge in VET implementation, or they are prepared to acquire that
knowledge through their ITO and/or consultants. The retention of the champion is
critical. In all cases, champions are a part of the organisation from the outset of VET
implementation. Finally, champions at the outset have a strong belief in HRD
investment, and this investment always precedes VET investment.

Funding is also another important input. The availability of training subsidies drives
VET investment, and is heavily weighed in assessing the associated costs and
benefits. However a major distinction between successful user organisation and
unsuccessful users is the willingness to invest additional organisational resources in
VET implementation. Training needs analysis, whether formal or informally
conducted, is also a critical activity carried out by successful users. The analysis is
driven by instrumental concerns, such as service quality and consistency in training
standards. It also covers developmental concerns such as suitability of delivery and
assessment methods to trainees needs. Importantly, analysis also determines whether
Industry Training as provided will adequately meet the organisations needs, and what
work may have to be done to ensure this alignment.

Adequacy of the HR infrastructure is also another key input. Successful VET

implementation requires support for VET implementation. This involves quality
communication to all organisational stakeholders, the establishment of the technical
infrastructure to manage the VET process. A high level of alignment between job
functions and training is also critical, as this facilitates seamlessness between job
performance and training assessment. Support also comes in the form of the social
relations among trainees and between trainees and managers. Individualistic
approaches to VET delivery yield limited impact. Greater levels of success are
associated with trainees pursuing training in groups, with clear support networks.
Although much of the training examined in the research would fall in the non231

traditional spheres of VET investment, what is clear is that service sector

organisations can over time develop communities of VET practice. Additional value
can be gained from VET engagement where the completion of VET qualifications can
be used to gain entry into the organisational group, or where it becomes the accepted
norm of the group.

Some form of evaluative process is also associated with the achievement of successful
outcomes. This again speaks to the goal focused approach that successful user
organisations possess. As mentioned earlier, the evaluation mechanisms used vary
from organisation to organisation. However, one common factor is that evaluation is
always to some extent inclusive; it involves either gathering data from or sharing data
with organisational stakeholders. Evaluation also involves a continuous determination
of the cost/benefits of VET engagement. Changes in training subsidies or changes in
qualifications structure may impact continued VET investment.

This mirrors aspects of the strategic HRD and resource based view of HRD which
advocate for the rational HRD decision making model of assessment, delivery and
evaluation, as well as the alignment between HRD and other organisational functions
to achieve favourable outcomes (Beatty et al., 2003; Wright et al., 2003). This is
where the HRD literature can better inform VET policy literature. In the VET policy
literature, there is a great emphasis on funding incentives to drive HRD investment in
workplaces (Gorg & Strobl, 2005). What is seen here is that this, while important, is
insufficient; other organisational characteristics are equally necessary. The importance
of HR champions also echoes some of the arguments in the Critical HRD literature.
The decision making power within organisations with regards to VET investment lies
in the hands of managers, in fact, possibly a few managers. These managers are also
the ones who guide the extent of that investment, in terms of organisational resources
that will be dedicated to it, what training programmes will be undertaken, etc.
Individual employees agency as it relates to VET engagement is limited by
organisational strictures, key among them being the values and attitudes of managers
in relation to VET investment.

The implications of these findings will be discussed in the concluding section.

232

CONCLUSION

So what are the implications of the research findings for future VET policy practice
and evaluation, and for theory and research?

An important finding from the data is that managers and workplace culture play
critical roles in supporting VET and creating value for multiple stakeholders,
particularly at the organisational level. One implication of this is that the provision of
funding to encourage investment in nationally recognised workplace training can be
insufficient to incentivise desired training behaviours. Funding only stimulates desired
behaviours, particularly benefits for a range of stakeholders, when key
managers/employers at the organisational level place value on training and
development as an integral part of the workplace culture, and where the technical
expertise to utilise the training either resides within the organisation or is accessed via
external consultants or an ITO. Where this valuing of VET and technical expertise is
limited, it results in limited benefits for stakeholders.

The question then for policymakers is how to encourage the management of skill
formation through VET. The empirical data in this research provides insights on this
under-researched area. Further research will be needed however to test the new
programme theory of creation of VET outputs and outcomes. Such research could
focus on the role and characteristics of workplaces as communities of VET practice.
This suggests a greater emphasis on a socio-cultural approach to VET policy research,
where the multivariate nature of VET in workplaces can be further illuminated (Stasz,
2001). The challenge for VET practice however is whether policy instruments can in
fact be developed and designed to enforce desired behaviour, especially in light of the
findings that stakeholders values in relation to VET are such a critical factor in a
revised programme theory (Coffield, 2004). One recommendation that could be
explored is the inclusion of a requirement of organisations to submit to a monitoring
body such as an ITO, proof of implementation of minimum requirements to support
VET implementation in their workplace, such as provision for assessment and trainee
support, in order to access training subsidies. This runs the risk of creating additional
paperwork and bureaucracy. However, it can be argued that participation in VET, and
the receipt of training subsidies constitutes an implicit agreement to participate in
233

public policy implementation (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2004). Such a reporting

requirement could be seen as attempting to assure benefits for a wider range of
stakeholders. Additionally, the role of ITOs and similar organisations in other
countries may need to be expanded to provide capacity building to organisations to
improve their capability to successfully implement VET initiatives. At the
organisational level, the recognition and assessment of the internal infrastructure
required to successfully engage in VET initiatives ought to be clearly understood prior
to engagement. Successful engagement requires expertise in the management of
competency based training and knowledge of assessment methodology, quality
assurance processes, as well as an appreciation of how to align Industry Training, in
particular the experiential component with the wider organisational and HR systems
and processes. For trainees, the data revealed VET engagement is initiated by
employers/managers. However, employees seeking developmental opportunities such
as access to VET through work, should appreciate that the quality of workplace
affordances directly impacts their ability to successfully engage in VET, in particular
the quality of the management of training and the extent to which managers are
required to provide learning support. The data also suggests that trainees would need
to be mindful that engagement in upgrade VET training may not directly impact their
level of employability in the wider labour market, as this training is often context
specific, and may not be recognised by other employers.

Another major implication of the research findings for VET evaluative practice is the
need for the management of meaning of performance data (Funnell, 2000; Thiel &
Leeuw, 2002). The assumption of consensus among stakeholders must be eliminated
from VET policy dialogue. The analysis of the data reveals that among stakeholders,
there can be areas of consensus, but also areas of disagreement in how some critical
factors in VET policy implementation are defined and evaluated, for example VET
quality. The multiple stakeholder approach of this research has assisted in unearthing
some of these disagreements. This then can be viewed as furthering the dialogue on
gaming behaviour and perverse incentives in the VET policy arena. The research
reveals that from a multiple stakeholder perspective, perceptions of gaming and
perversity are value-laden, and are constructed through political struggles and
interests, particularly at the industry interest group levels. The research is however
limited in scope in terms of the number of stakeholder groups included. Future
234

research would benefit greatly from a similar multiple stakeholder approach, but with
greater emphasis on analyses based on sectoral, ethnic, gender, occupational, and
organisational differences. Such analyses could reveal important differences in
definitions and importance of a variety of VET outputs and outcomes, and may lend
themselves to more tailored policy action that is reflective of stakeholders needs and
values.
The use of the analytical framework where the data was analysed through two
programme theories the strategic HRD/VET logic and the Critical HRD/Stakeholder
logic, proved a useful heuristic for analysing the various stakeholder perspectives
presented. One of the important findings from using this analytical framework is that
stakeholders perceptions are not always as polarised, as Critical HRD theorists
postulate (Fenwick, 2005). Rather, the two programme theories represent tensions
within VET policy, rather than charged dichotomies (FitzSimons, 2002). It is however
an analytical framework that should be subjected to further empirical testing in VET
policy research, given the limited nature of this research, in terms of scope and range
of stakeholders.

Further research opportunities include, testing this new VET policy evaluation and
outcome creation model in the context of other industries, and VET systems in other
countries. This would allow comparative examination of the approaches to value
creation and evaluation of VET engagement used by these different sectors and
systems. Using a wider range of case studies, the logic can also be tested across
organisations of varying size. This could be particularly beneficial in countries with a
proliferation of SMEs, which invariably limited internal capacity, a factor identified in
the model as critical to VET success. The model can be tested to examine different
kinds of employees, particularly disadvantaged groups such as women and other
minorities, in order to examine inter-relationships between VET and characteristics
leading to labour market disadvantage, an issue that was beyond the scope of this
research. The data here revealed some advantages to the logic in creating value for
second chance learners; however, the selection strategy used did not intentionally
target specific types of trainees. It is posited however that the new model as well as
the wider research findings provide a new and more robust heuristic for researching
VET evaluation practices from a multiple stakeholder perspective.
235

Appendix A: List of Respondents

LIST OF RESPONDENTS
Policy Makers
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Industry Interest Groups
Respondent 5
Respondent 6
Respondent 7
Respondent 8
Respondent 9
Respondent 10
Respondent 11
Respondent 12
Respondent 13
Respondent 14
Respondent 15
Respondent 16
Company A
Respondent 17
Respondent 18
Respondent 19
Respondent 20
Company B
Respondent 21
Respondent 22
Respondent 23
Respondent 24
Respondent 25
Respondent 26
Department X
Respondent 27
Respondent 28
Respondent 29
Respondent 30
Respondent 31
Respondent 32
Respondent 33
Respondent 34
Respondent 35

Tertiary Education Commission

Department of Labour
Department of Labour
Department of Labour
State Services Commission
Business New Zealand
Tourism Industry Association of New
Zealand
Ministry of Tourism
Industry Training Federation
Industry Training Federation
Learning State
Aviation, Travel, Tourism Training
Organisation
Aviation, Travel, Tourism Training
Organisation
New Zealand Council of Trade Unions
Hospitality Standards Institute
New Zealand Qualifications Authority
Owner/Trainer
Line Manager A/Learner
Trainee A
Trainee B
Operations Manager/Assessor/Trainer
HR Manager A
Line Manager B
Trainee C
Trainee D
Trainee E
HR Manager B
Line Manager C/Former Assessor
Line Manager D
Line Manager E
Line Manager F
Trainee F
Trainee G
Trainee H
Trainee I

236

LIST OF RESPONDENTS
Ministry Y
Respondent 36
Respondent 37
Respondent 38
Respondent 39
Respondent 40
Respondent 41
Respondent 42
Respondent 43
Respondent 44
Respondent 45
Respondent 46
Respondent 47
Respondent 48
Respondent 49
Respondent 50

HR Manager C
HR Manager D
Line Manager G
Line Manager H/Assessor/Leaner
Line Manager I
Line Manager J
Trainee J
Trainee K
Trainee L
Trainee M
Trainee N
Trainee O
Trainee P
Trainee Q
Trainee R

237

Policymakers
How did the
strategy come
about?
What is the
strategy
supposed to
achieve and for
who?
How is the
strategy
expected to
work?
Who has what
role in
implementing
the strategy and
how do you
determine the
extent to which
that role has
been filled?
How is the
strategy
evaluated? What
challenges do
policymakers
face in

Industry Interest
Groups

APPENDIX B: RESEARCH QUESTIONS MAP

General
Training Manager (if Line Manager
Manager/Owner
existing)

Trainees

Research
Questions
How do
different
stakeholders
evaluate the
impact of New
Zealands
Industry
Training
Strategy?

238

Policymakers

Industry Interest
Groups

General
Manager/Owner

Training Manager (if

existing)

Line Manager

Trainees

Research
Questions

How did the

strategy come
about?
What is the
strategy suppose
to achieve and
for who?
How is the
strategy
expected to
work?
Who has what
role in
implementing
the strategy and
how do you
determine the
extent to which
that role has
been filled?
Why do workers
and firms

Why does the

organisation choose
to engage in training
generally and
Industry Training in
particular?

Why does the

organisation choose
to engage in training
generally and
Industry Training in
particular?

Why does the

organisation choose
to engage in training
generally and
Industry Training in
particular?

What kinds of
training/employees
from your firm are
involved in training
generally and
Industry Training in
particular?

What kinds of
training/employees
from your firm are
involved in training
generally and
Industry Training in
particular?

What kinds of
training/employees
from your firm are
involved in training
generally and
Industry Training in
particular?

Why did you

choose to
engage in
Industry
Training? Was
it of your own
choosing?
Was it
beneficial to
you?
Have you used
the training and
if so how?

How do
different
stakeholders
evaluate the
impact of New
Zealands
Industry
Training
Strategy?

evaluating the
strategy?

Why do workers
and firms
choose to
engage in
Industry
Training?

How is value
created
for
different
stakeholders
from
engagement in
the
Industry
Training
Strategy?

239

Policymakers

Industry Interest
Groups
choose to
engage in
Industry
Training?
How do you
evaluate the
strategy? What
challenges do
you face in
evaluating the
strategy?

General
Manager/Owner

Training Manager (if

existing)

Line Manager

What value does the

firm derive from
Industry Training?

What value does the

firm derive from
Industry Training?

What value does the

firm derive from
Industry Training?

How do you
determine this value?

How do you
determine this value?
Were there expected
benefits that have
been
unrealised/challenges
faced in getting the
full benefits
expected?

How do you
determine this value?
Were there expected
benefits that have
been
unrealised/challenges
faced in getting the
full benefits
expected?

Were there
unexpected benefits?

Were there
unexpected benefits?

Were there expected

benefits that have
been
unrealised/challenges
faced in getting the
full benefits
expected?
Were there

Trainees

Research
Questions

How is value
created by
different
stakeholders
from
engagement in
the Industry
Training
Strategy?

240

Policymakers

Industry Interest
Groups

General
Manager/Owner
unexpected benefits?
What are these and
what in your view
caused them?

Training Manager (if

existing)
What are these and
what in your view
caused them?

Line Manager

Trainees

Research
Questions

What are these and

what in your view
caused them?

For cases, I will also be asking questions and collecting secondary data in relation to the following:
-

Organisation history (recent changes, size, structure, competitive/operational challenges)

Organisation environment (the wider sector of which it is a part)
Organisational learning climate
Skill development activities, motives
Participation of employees in skill development
Role of specific actors such as managers, supervisors

241

REFERENCES

Abbot, B. (1993). Training strategies in small service sector firms: employer and
employee perspectives. Human Resource Management, 4 (2), 70 87.
Acemoglu, D. (1997). Training and innovation in an imperfect labour market. Review
of Economic Studies, 64 (3), 445-464.
Acemoglu, D. (2003). Human capital policies and the distribution of income: a
framework for analysis and literature review. Wellington: New Zealand
Treasury Department.
Agriculture ITO Annual Report partners in productivity. (2008). Wellington:
Agriculture ITO.
Aldcroft, D. (1992). Education, training and economic performance 1944-1990.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Alkin, M. (Ed.). (2004). Evaluation roots: tracing theorists views and influences.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Alkin, M., & Christie, C. (2004). An evaluation theory tree. In M. Alkin (Ed.),
Evaluation roots: tracing theorists views and influences. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Antonacopoulou, E. (1999). Training does not imply learning: the individuals
perspective. International Journal of Training and Development, 3 (1), 14-33.
Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrongs handbook of human resource management
practice (11th ed.). London: Michael Armstrong.
Ashton, D. (2002). The dynamics of workplace learning: the role of work
organisations. In K. Evans, P. Hodkinson & L. Unwin (Eds.), Working to
learn: transforming learning in the workplace. London: Kogan Page.
Ashton, D. (2004). The political economy of workplace learning. In H. Rainbird, A.
Fuller & A. Munroe (Eds.), Workplace learning in context. London:
Routledge.
Ashton, D., Green, F., Sung, J., & James, D. (2002). The evolution of education and
training strategies in Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea: a development
model of skill formation. Journal of Education and Work, 15 (1), 5 29.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative
research. Qualitative Research 1 (3), 385-405.
ATTTO Annual Report: setting the standard for training in aviation, tourism, travel
and museums. (2007). Wellington: ATTTO.
Avery, G. Everett, A., Finkelde, A. & Wallace, K. (1999). Emerging trends in
Australian and New Zealand management development practices in the 21st
century. Journal of Management Development, 18 (1), 94-108.
Baehler, K. (2002). Intervention logic: a users guide. Public Sector, 25 (3), 14-20.
Baehler, K. (2003). Managing for outcomes: accountability and trust. Australian
Journal of Public Administration, 62 (4), 23-34.
Bailey, T., & Merritt, D. (1995). Making sense of industry-based skill standards.
Washington D.C.: Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
Baker, J. (2007). Industry training investment out of step with skill shortages media
release 17 May 2007. Wellington: Industry Training Federation.
Ball, R. & Halwachi, J. (1987). Performance indicators in higher education. Higher
Education, 16 (4), 393-405.
Barbour, R. (2008). Introducing qualitative research: a student guide to the craft of
doing qualitative research. Sage Publications Limited.
242

Barnetson, B. & Cutright, M. (2000). Performance indicators as conceptual

technologies. Higher Education, 40 (3), 277-292.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17 (1), 99-120.
Bassanini, A., Booth, A., Brunello, G., Paola, M.D., & Leuven, E. (2005). Workplace
training in Europe: Discussion paper No. 1640. Bonn: Institute for the Study
of Labour.
Baxendine, S., Cochrane, B., & Poot, J. (2005). Description and spatial analysis of
employment change in New Zealand regions 1986-2001: Discussion paper No.
57. Hamilton: Population Studies Centre, University of Waikato.
Beatty, R., Huselid, M., & Schneier, C. (2003). Scoring on the business scorecard.
Organisational Dynamics, 32 (2), 107-121.
Becker, G. (1962). Investment in human capital: a theoretical analysis. Journal of
Political Economy, 70 (5 Part 2), 9-49.
Becton, S. & Graetz, B. (2001). Small business small minded? Training attitudes
and needs of the tourism and hospitality industry. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 3, 105-113.
Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P., Mills, D., & Walton. R. (1985). Human resource
management: a general managers perspective text and cases. New York:
The Free Press.
Behn, R. (1981). Policy analysis and policy politics. Policy Analysis, 7 (2), 199-225.
Beierle, T. (2002). Quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Analysis, 22 (4), 739749.
Benson, G. (2006). Employee development, commitment and intention to turnover: a
test of employability policies in action. Human Resource Management
Journal, 16 (2), 173-192
Bickman, L. (2000). Summing up program theory. New Directions for Evaluation, 87,
103-112.
Billett, S. (2000). Guided learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12 (7),
272-285.
Billett, S. (2004a). Learning in the workplace: reappraisals and reconceptions. In G.
Hayward & S. James (Eds.), Balancing the skills equation: key issues and
challenges for policy and practice. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Billett, S. (2004b). Workplace participatory practices. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 16 (6), 312-324.
Billett, S., & Hayes, S. (2000). Meeting the demand: the needs of vocational
education and training clients an overview. National Centre for Vocational
Education Research.
Blalock, A. (1999). Evaluation research and the performance management movement.
Evaluation, 5 (2), 117-149.
Blundell, R., Dearden, L., Meghir, C., & Sianesi, B. (1999). Human capital
investment: the returns from education and training to the individual, the firm
and the economy. Fiscal Studies, 20 (1), 1-23.
Bolton, S., & Houlihan, M. (2007). Beginning the search for the H in HRM. In S.
Bolton & M. Houlihan (Eds.), Searching for the human in human resource
management: theory, practice and workplace contexts. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Boshier, R. (1980). Towards a learning society. Vancouver: Learningpress Limited.
Boxall, P. (1996). The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the firm.
Human Resource Management, 6 (3), 59-75.
243

Boxall, P. (2003). HR strategy and competitive advantage in the service sector.

Human Resource Management, 13 (3), 5 20.
Briggs, C. & Katay, J. (2000). Vocational education and training, skill formation and
the labour market. Sydney: NSW Board of Vocational Education and
Training.
Brinkerhoff, R. (1989). Using evaluation to transform training. New Directions for
Program Evaluation, 44, 5 19.
Brinkerhoff, R. (2003). The success case method: find out quickly whats working
and whats not. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
Brinkerhoff, R. (2005). The success case method: a strategic evaluation approach to
increasing the value and effect of training. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 7 (1), 86-101.
Brinkerhoff, R. (2006). Telling trainings story: evaluation made simple, credible and
effective. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
Brosnan, P., & Rea, D. (1992). Government policy on restructuring the labour
market: New Zealand Working Paper 16. Sydney: ACIRRT, University of
Sydney.
Brown, P., Lauder, H., & Ashton, D. (2008). Towards a high skills economy: higher
education and new realities of global capitalism. In R. Boden, R. Deem, D.
Epstein, F. Rizvi & S. Wright (Eds.), World Year Book of Education 2008.
Geography of knowledge, geometrics of power: high education in the 21st
century. London: Routledge.
Bryant, K. (2007). Reporting value added to training project. Paper presented at the
Industry Training Federation Conference.
Bryson, J. (2006). How national learning and training strategies are implemented at
the workplace level through industry training organisations. Paper presented
at the APEC HRD Forum: Increasingly vital role of enterprises in HRD.
Bryson, J. (2007). Human resource development or developing human capability? In
S. Bolton & M. Houlihan (Eds.), Searching for the human in human resource
management. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Bryson, J., & ONeil, P. (2008). Developing human capability: employment
institutions, organisations and individuals an overview of findings on
developing human capability. Wellington: Industrial Relations Centre,
Victoria University of Wellington.
Bryson, J., Pajo, K., Ward, R., & Mallon, M. (2006). Learning at work: organisational
affordances and individual engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18
(5), 279-297.
Buchanan, J., Briggs, C., Considine, G., Schofield, K., & McIntyre, J. (2000).
Vocational education and training and the changing nature of work: overview
of work in progress. NWS Board of Vocational Education and Training.
Buchanan, J., Schofield, K., Briggs, C.,Considine, G., Hager, P., Hawke, G., et al.
(2001). Beyond flexibility: skills and work in the future. Sydney: NSW Board
of Vocational Education and Training.
Buchanan, J., Watson, I., Briggs, C., & Campbell, I. (2006). Beyond voodoo
economics and backlash social policy: where next for working life research
and policy? Australian Bulletin of Labour, 32 (2), 183-201
Buchholz, R., & Rosenthal, S. (2004). Stakeholder theory and public policy: how
governments matter. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 143-153.
Career maps and pathways report. (2008). Wellington: HSI/Projects
International/ATTTO.
244

Career progression and development survey: results for the New Zealand public
service. (2005). Wellington: State Services Commission.
Case studies: workplace productivity in practice. (2004). Retrieved September 27,
2008 from http://www.dol.govt.nz.
Chalofsky, N. (1992). A unifying definition for the human resource development
profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3 (2), 175-182.
Chappell, C., Hawke, G., & Schofield, K. (2002). An industry-led system: issues of
policy practice and practitioners. Sydney: University of Technology.
Chelimsky, E. (1996). Auditing and evaluation? Whither the relationship? New
Directions for Evaluation, 71, 61-67.
Christie, C. (2003). What guides evaluation? A study of how evaluation practice maps
onto evaluation theory. New Directions in Evaluation, 97, 7 35.
Christopoulos, D. (2007). Explaining countrys efficiency performance. Economic
Modelling, 24, 224-235.
Coffield, F. (2004). Alternative routes out of the low skills equilibrium: a rejoinder to
Lloyd and Payne. Journal of Education Policy, 19 (6), 733-740.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high performance
work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organisational
performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501-528.
Cooksky, L., Gill., P., & Kelly, P.A. (2001). The program logic model as an
integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 24, 119-128.
Correa, H. (2004). A game theoretic analysis of public/government interactions in
human capital formation. Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 409-425.
Cousins, J., & Earl, L. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14 (4), 397-418.
Cox, A. (2007). Re-visiting the NVQ debate: bad qualifications, expansive learning
environments and prospects for upskilling workers: SKOPE Research Paper
No. 71: Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance.
Crichton, S. (2009). Does workplace-based industry training improve earnings?
Wellington: Statistics New Zealand and New Zealand Department of Labour.
Crocombe, G., Enright, M., & Porter, M. (1991). Upgrading New Zealands
competitive advantage. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Crouch, C., Finegold, D., & Sako, M. (1999). Are skills the answer? The political
economy of skill creation in advanced industrial countries. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Culpepper, P. (1999). The future of the high-skill equilibrium in Germany. Oxford
Review of Economic Policy, 15 (1), 43-59.
Daly, A., Hitchins, D., & Wagner, K. (1985). Productivity, machinery and skills in a
sample of British and German manufacturing plants. National Institute
Economic Review, 111, 48-61.
Dalziel, P. (2007). Integrating employment, skills and economic development: New
Zealand: Report to the OECD: LEED Programme, OECD.
Dalziel, P., & Saunders, C. (2003). Regional economic development planning in New
Zealand: who owns it? Canterbury: Agribusiness and Economics Research
Unit, Lincoln University.
David, P., & Lopez, J. (2001). Knowledge, capabilities and human capital formation
in economic growth. Wellington: New Zealand Treasury Department.
Davies, I. (1999). Evaluation and performance management in government.
Evaluation, 5 (2), 150-159.
245

Davis, N. (2006). Business R & D, innovation and economic growth : an evidencebased synthesis of the policy issues. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of
Economic Development.
Delivering value: the contribution of ITOs to New Zealand vocational education and
training. (2010). Retrieved November 12, 2010, from http://itf.org.nz.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage Handbook of qualitative research
(3rd ed.): Sage Publications Inc.
Developing the second tertiary education strategy: Industry Training Federation
submission to the Ministry of Education. (2006). Wellington: Industry
Training Federation.
Devins, D., & Johnston, S. (2003). Training and development activities in SMEs:
some findings from an evaluation of the ESF objective 4 programme in
Britain. International Small Business Journal, 21 (2), 213-228.
Dieckhoff, M. (2008). Skills and occupational attainment: a comparative study of
Germany, Denmark and the UK. Work, Employment and Society, 22 (1), 89108.
Dillingham, W. (2002). New Zealands workforce: qualifications and evidence of
upskilling. Wellington: Labour Market Policy Group, New Zealand
Department of Labour.
Dixit, A. (2002). Incentives and organisations in the public sector: an interpretative
review. Journal of Human Resources, 37 (4), 696-727.
Dockery, A. (2001). Training, innovation and business performance: an analysis of
the business longitudinal survey. Australian National Training Authority.
Donaldson, S., & Gooler, L. (2003). Theory-driven evaluation in action: lessons from
a $20 million statewide Work and Health initiative. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 26, 355-366.
Downey, J., & Zeltmann, S. (2009). The role of competence level on the self-efficacy
skills relationship: an empirical examination of the skill acquisition process
and its implications for information technology training. International Journal
of Training and Development, 13 (2), 96-110.
Dunn, C. (2006). The benefits of completing a retail industry qualification.
Wellington: Retail ITO.
Dunn, C. (2007). Retail ITO employer survey report. Wellington: Retail ITO.
Dunn, W. (2004). Public policy analysis: an introduction (3rd ed.). New Jersey:
Pearson PrenticeHall.
Dunning, J. (1992). The competitive advantage f countries and the activities of
transnational corporations. Transnational Corporations, 1, 135-168.
Durbin, S. (2004). Workplace skills, technology adoption and firm productivity: a
review. Wellington: New Zealand Treasury Department.
Dyson, C., & Keatin, J. (2005). Skills, knowledge and employability: recognition of
prior learning policy and practice for skills learned at work. Geneva:
International Labour Office.
Edgar, F. & Geare, A. (2005). Employee voice in human resource management. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43 (3), 183-196.
Edgar, F. & Geare, A. (2007). Legislating for best practice in HRM: the New Zealand
approach. Public Personnel Management, 36 (3), 183-196.
Edwards, P., Sengupta, S., & Tsai, C. (2007). Managing work in the low-skill
equilibrium: a study of UK food manufacturing: SKOPE Research Paper No.
72. Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance.
Edwards, R., & Boreham, N. (2003). The centre cannot hold: complexity and
246

difference in European Union policy towards a learning society. Journal of

Education Policy, 18 (4), 407-421.
Elkin, G. (1998). New Zealand human capital development and structural reform.
International Journal of Training and Development, 2 (1), 42- 60.
Elliot, C., & Turnbull, S. (Eds.). (2005). Critical thinking in human resource
development. Leicester: Routledge.
Eraut, M., Alderton, J., Cole, G. & Senker, P. (2000). Development of knowledge and
skills at work. In F. Coffield (Ed.), Differing visions of a learning society.
London: The Policy Press, Economic and Social Research Council.
Eraut, M., & Hirsh, W. (2007). The significance of workplace learning for individuals
groups and organisations. ESRC Centre on Skills, Knowledge and
Organisational Performance.
Evans, K., & Rainbird, H. (2002). The significance of workplace learning for a
learning society. In K. Evancs, P. Hodkinson & L. Unwn (Eds.), Working to
learn: transforming learning in the workplace. London: Kogan Page.
Evans, L., Grimes, A., Wilkinson, B., & Teece, D. (1996). Economic reform in New
Zealand 1984-95: the pursuit of efficiency. Journal of Economic Literature,
34, 1856-1902.
Fabling, R., & Grimes, A. (2006) Practice makes profit: business practices and firm
success. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development.
Fabling, R., & Grimes, A. (2007). HR practices and firm performance: what matters
and who does it? Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Economic
Development.
Fenwick, T. (2004).Toward a critical HRD in theory and practice. Adult Education
Quarterly, 54, 193-208.
Fenwick, T. (2005). Conceptions of critical HRD: dilemmas for theory and practice.
Human Resource Development International, 8 (2), 225-238.
Fenwick, T. (2006). Learning as grounding and flying: knowledge, skill and
transformation in changing work contexts. Journal of Industrial Relations, 48
(5), 691-706.
Fenwick, T., & Hall, R. (2006). Skills in the knowledge economy: changing meanings
in changing conditions. Journal of Industrial Relations, 48 (5), 571-574.
Fetterman, D., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.) (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles
in practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
Field, J. (1991). Competency and the pedagogy of labour. Studies in the Education of
Adults, 23 (1), 41-66.
Finegold, D. (1999). Creating self-sustaining, high-skill ecosystems. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 15 (1), 60-81.
Finegold, D., & Soskice, D. (1988). The failure of training in Britain: analysis and
prescription. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 4 (3), 21-51.
Fischer, F., Miller, G., Sidney, M. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of public policy analysis:
theory, politics and methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
FitzSimons, G. (2002). What counts as mathematics? Technologies of power in adult
and vocational education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fleetwood, S., & Hesketh, A. (2006). HRM-performance research: under-theorised
and lacking in explanatory power. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17 (12), 1977-1993.
Fleetwood, S., & Hesketh, A. (2007). Theorising under-theorisation in research of the
HRM-performance link. Personnel Review, 37 (2), 126-144.
Flude, M., & Siemenski, S. (Eds.) (1999). Education, training and the future of work
247

(Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.

Frey, L., Botan, P., Friedman, P., & Kreps, G. (1991). Investigating communication:
an introduction to research methods. EnglewoodCliffs: PrenticeHall.
Fuller, A., Ashton, D., Felstead, A., Urwin, L., Walters, S., & Quinn, M. (2003). The
impact of informal learning at work on business productivity: final report to
the Department of Trade and Industry. Centre for Labour Market Studies,
University of Leicester.
Funnell, S. (2000). Developing and using a program theory matrix for program
evaluation and performance monitoring. New Directions for Evaluation, 87,
91-101
Garavan, T., Gunnigle, P., & Morley, M. (2000). Contemporary HRD research: a
triarchy of theoretical perspectives and their prescriptions for HRD. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 24 (2/3/4/), 65-93.
Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: principles and practices. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave? The knowledge society and the
future of education. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational
Research Press.
Gorg, H., & Strobl, E. (2005). Do government subsidies stimulate training
expenditure? Microeconometric evidence from plant level data: Discussion
Paper No. 1606. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labour.
Gray, A. (2006). Upskilling through foundation skills: a literature review.
Wellington: New Zealand Department of Labour.
Green, D., & Riddell, W.C. (2003). Literacy and earnings: an investigation of the
interaction of cognitive and unobserved skills in earnings generation: Labour
Economics, 10, 165-184.
Green, F., Ashton, D., James, D., & Sung, J. (1999). The role of the state in skill
formation: evidence from the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Taiwan.
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15 (1), 82-96.
Green, F., Mayhew, K., & Molloy, E. (2003). Employer perspectives survey. London:
Department of Education and Skills.
Green, N., Hopkins, C., Williams, P., & Murdoch, C. (2003). A brief history of
government funding for industry training 1989-2002. Wellington: Industry
Training Federation.
Gregory, R. (2004).Political life and intervention logic: relearning old lessons?
International Public Management Journal, 7 (3), 299-315.
Grubb, W.N.,& Ryan, P. (1999). The roles of evaluation for vocational education and
training: plain talk in the field of dreams. Geneva: International Labour
Office.
Grugulis, I. (2003). The contribution of national qualifications to the growth of skills
in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41 (3), 457-475.
Guest, D. (1999). Human resource management the workers verdict. Human
Resource Management Journal, 9 (3), 5 -25.
Hager, P. (2000). Know-how and workplace practical judgement. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 34 (2), 281 295
Hager, P. (2004). Lifelong learning in the workplace? Challenges and issues. Journal
of Workplace Learning, 16 (12), 22-32.
Hager, P., & Beckett, D. (1999). Making judgements as the basis for workplace
learning preliminary research findings. Sydney: UTS Research Centre for
Vocational Education and Training.
248

Hales, B. (2004). Lets not dumb down workplace learning. New Zealand
Management, 15 (7), 22-23.
Hall, D. (2004). Modern apprenticeships. Wellington: Industry Training Federation.
Hall, R., Buchanan, J., & Bretherton, T. (2000). Its not my problem: the growth of
non-standard work and its impact on vocational education and training in
Australia. Sydney: ACIRRT.
Hall, R., & Jones, C. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output
per worker than others? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83-115.
Hall, R., & Lansbury, R. (2006). Skills in Australia: towards workforce development
and sustainable skill ecosystems. Journal of Industrial Relations, 48 (5), 575592.
Hanberger, A. (2001). What is a policy problem? Methodological challenges in policy
evaluation. Evaluation, 7 (1), 45-62.
Hansson, B. (2008). Job-related training and benefits for individuals: a review of
evidence and explanations. OECD Education Working Papers, 19, 1 48.
Hanushek, E., & Wobmann, L. (2007). The role of education quality in economic
growth. World Bank.
Harbison, F. (1973). Human resources as the wealth of nations. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hardy, F. (2008). Measuring the value of training by quantifying the return on
investment of training in both economic and non-economic terms. Paper
presented at Evaluating Workplace Learning Identifying Success
Conference.
Harris, K. (2007). Interview on the topic: the history and development of industry
training organisations in New Zealand.Wellington.
Harvey, O., & Harris, P. (2008). The skills-productivity nexus: connecting industry
training and business performance. Wellington: New Zealand Department of
Labour/Industry Training Federation.
Hawke, G. (1988). Report on the working group on post compulsory education and
training in New Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Hawke, G., Ross, B., & Smythe, D. (1986). Labour market flexibility. Wellington:
New Zealand Planning Council.
Hayward, G., & James, S. (Eds.) (2004). Balancing the skills equation: key issues and
challenges for policy and practice. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Heise, W. (1998). Portability of qualifications: an answer to the qualifications
demands of globalisation? Journal of European Industrial Training, 22 (7),
289 298.
Heyes, J., & Stuart, M. (1996). Does training matter? Employee experiences and
attitudes. Human Resource Management Journal, 6 (3), 7-21.
High Performance ITOs. (2009). Wellington: Industry Training Federation.
Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: developing a framework for policy
analysis. Institute for Policy Studies.
Hodkinson, P., & Bloomer, M. (2002). Learning careers, conceptualising lifelong
work-based learning. In K. Evans, P. Hodkinson & L. Urwin (Eds.), Working
to learn: transforming learning in the workplace. London: Kogan Page.
Holtom, B., Mitchell, T., & Lee, T. (2006). Increasing human and social capital by
applying job embeddedness theory. Organisational Dynamics, 35 (4), 316331.
Holton, E. (2005). Holtons evaluation model: new evidence and construct
evaluations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7 (1), 37-54.
249

Holton, E., & Naquin, S. (2005). Critical analysis of HRD evaluation models from a
decision-making perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16
(2), 257-280.
Hoque, K., & Bacon, N. (2006). The antecedents of training activity in British small
and medium-sized enterprises. Work, Employment and Society, 20 (3), 531552.
House, E. (1978). Assumptions underlying evaluation models. Educational
Researcher, 7 (3), 4-12.
House, E. (2001a). Responsive evaluation (and its influence on deliberative
democratic evaluation). New Directions for Evaluation, 92, 23-30.
House, E. (2001b). Unfinished business: causes and values. American Journal of
Evaluation, 22 (3), 309-315.
House, E. (2003). Stakeholder bias. New Directions for Evaluation, 97, 53-56.
Human capital and the inclusive economy: Treasury Working Paper 01/16. (2001).
New Zealand Treasury Department.
Human resource capability survey of public service departments as at 30 June 2007.
(2007). Wellington: State Services Commission.
Industry Training 2003. (2004). Wellington: New Zealand Tertiary Education
Commission
Industry Training 2005. (2005). Wellington: New Zealand Tertiary Education
Commission.
Industry Training Act, (1992).
Industry training and modern apprenticeship statistics as at 30 September 2006.
(2007). Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Industry Training skills leadership: the role of industry training organisations in
shaping skills in the New Zealand economy. (2006). Wellington: Industry
Training Federation.
Industry Training: file specification for industry training organisation performance
measurement system. (2005). Wellington. Retrieved 30 March 2010 from
http://www/tec/govt/nz.
Ingram, B., & Neumann, G. (2006). The returns to skill. Labour Economics, 13, 3559.
Inkson, K. (2006). Protean and boundaryless careers as metaphors. Journal of
Vocational Behaviour, 69, 48-63.
Investing in a plan. (2007). ITP Update (1), 1-14.
Jesson, B. (1999). Only their purpose is mad: the money men take over NZ.
Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Johnston, G. (2004). Adult literacy and economic growth. Wellington, New Zealand
Treasury Department.
Julian, D., Jones, A., & Deyo, D. (1995). Open systems evaluation and the logic
model: program planning and evaluation tools. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 18 (4), 333-341.
Junor, A. (1992). Emerging training patterns: productive, equitable? Paper presented
at the Training for the Workplace: Developing and evaluating programmes.
University of Sydney.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into
action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2001). The strategy-focused organisation how balanced
scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston: Harvard
Business School Publishing Corporation.
250

Kaplan, S., & Garrett, K. (2005). The use of logic models by community-based
initiatives. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 167-172.
Katz, E., & Ziderman, A. (1990). Investment in general training: the role of
information and labour mobility. Economic Journal, 100 (403), 1147-1158.
Keep, E. (2007). Key future labour market and skills issues in Scotland (and beyond).
Glasgow: Futureskills Scotland.
Keep, E. (2009). Internal and external incentives to engage in education and training
- a framework for analysing the forces acting on individuals? Cardiff: ESRC
Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance, Cardiff
University.
Keep, E., & Mayhew, K. (1999). The assessment: knowledge, skills and
competitiveness. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15 (1), 1 15.
Keep, E., & Mayhew, K. (2004). Can employers be persuaded that training pays?
Glasgow: Futureskills Scotland.
Keep, E., & Payne, J. (2004). I cant believe its not a skill: the changing meaning
of skill in the UK context and some implications. In G. Hayward & S. James
(Eds.), Balancing the skills equation: key issues and challenges for police and
practice. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Key facts about industry training. (2008). Retrieved September 22, 2008 from
http://www.itf.org.nz
Key steps forward for workforce literacy. (2008). Wellington: Business NZ/NZCTU/
Workbase.
King, J. (2003). The challenge of studying evaluation theory. New Developments for
Evaluation, 97, 57-67.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1998a). Evaluating training programs: the four levels (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
Kirkpatrick, D. (Ed.) (1998b). Another look at evaluating training programs.
American Society for Training and Development.
Kis, V. (2005). Quality assurance in tertiary education: current practices in OECD
countries and a literature review on potential conflicts. Paris: OECD.
Kitching, J. (2007). Regulating employment relations through workplaces learning: a
study of small employers. Human Resource Management, 17 (1), 42-57.
Kitching, J. (2008). Rethinking UK small employers skills policies and the role of
workplace learning. International Journal of Training and Development, 12
(2), 100-120.
Kitching, J., & Blackburn, R. (2002). The nature of training and motivation to train in
small firms. Department for Education and Skills.
Knowledge at Work. (2001). Wellington: Skill New Zealand.
Knuckey, S., Johnston, H., Campbell-Hunt, C., Carlaw, K., Corbett, L., & Massey, C.
(2002). Firm foundations: a study of New Zealand business practices and
performance. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development.
Kock, H., Gill, A., & Ellstrom, P.E. (2008). Why do small enterprises participate in a
programme for competence development. Journal of Workplace Learning, 20
(3), 181-194.
Korczynski, M. (2005). Skills in service work: an overview. Human Resource
Management, 15 (2), 3-14.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School.
Kulvisaechana, S. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of developing human capital in the
organisation: a case study. University of Cambridge.
Lamm, F., Massey, C., & Perry, M. (2006). Productivity indicators and challenges in
251

New Zealand workplaces. Wellington: Labour Employment and Work in New

Zealand.
Lamm, F., & Rasmussen, E. (2008). Employment relations. In K. Macky (Ed.),
Managing human resources: contemporary perspectives in New Zealand. New
South Wales: McGraw-Hill Australia.
Lange, T., Ottens, M., & Taylor, A. (2000). SMEs and barriers to skills development:
a Scottish perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24 (1), 5-11.
Laughlin, R., & Broadbent, J. (1996). Redesigning fourth generation evaluation: an
evaluation model for the public sector reforms in the UK? Evaluation, 2 (4),
431-451.
Le, T., Gibson, J., & Oxley, L. (2005). Measures of human capital: a review of the
literature. Wellington: New Zealand Treasury Department.
Learner perceptions of industry training. (2007). Wellington: Industry Training
Federation.
Leeuw, F. (1996). Auditing and evaluation: bridging a gap, worlds to meet? New
Directions for Evaluation, 71, 51-60.
Lennie, J. (2006). Increasing the rigour and trustworthiness of participatory
evaluations: learnings from the field. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 6 (1),
27-35.
Liaise report: a forecast of skill needs and training priorities for the New Zealand
Hospitality Industry to 2012. (2007). Wellington: Hospitality Standards
Institute.
Literacy, language and numeracy action plan 2008-2012. (2008). Wellington:
Tertiary Education Commission.
Livingstone, D. (2005). Exploring adult learning and work in advanced capitalist
society. Retrieved April 2, 2007 from http://www.obs-pascal.com/
Lloyd, C., & Payne, J. (2003). The political economy of skill and the limits of
educational policy. Journal of Education Policy, 18 (1), 85-107.
Lloyd, C., & Payne, J. (2005). High performance work organisation a driver for the
high skills vision? SKOPE Issues Paper 6.
Logic model development guide. (2004). Battle Creek: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Logic model for the evaluation of the 10-year strategic plan for early childhood
education: pathways to the future. (2003). Wellington: CIRCLE RMIT
University.
Lunt, N. (2003). Knowledge for policy: the emergence of evaluation research within
New Zealand. In N. Lunt, C. Davidson & K. McKegg (Eds.). Evaluation
policy and practice: a New Zealand reader. Auckland: Pearson Education
New Zealand Limited.
Lunt, N., & Davidson, C. (2003). Introduction. In N. Lunt, C. Davidson & K.
McKegg (Eds.). Evaluation policy and practice: a New Zealand reader.
Auckland: Pearson Education New Zealand Limited.
Mahoney, P. (2010). Industry training exploring the data. Wellington: New Zealand
Ministry of Education.
Martin, G., Pate, J., & Beaumont, P. (2001). Company-based education programmes:
whats the pay-off for employers. Human Resource Management, 11 (4), 5573.
Mason, G., & Osbourne, M. (2007). Productivity, capital-intensity and labour quality
at sector level on New Zealand and the United Kingdom: Treasury Working
Paper 07/01. Wellington: New Zealand Treasury Department.
McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J., & Watson, S. (2001). Theorising human resource
252

development. Human Resource Development International, 4 (3), 343-356.

McLaughlin, C. (2006). Achieving efficiency with equity: a labour market analysis of
Denmark, Ireland and New Zealand. Unpublished PhD, University of
Cambridge.
McLean, G., Bartlett, K., & Cho, E. (2003). Human resource development as national
policy: Republic of Korea and New Zealand. Pacific Asian Education, 15 (1),
41-59.
McQuaid, R., & Lindsay, C. (2005). The concept of employability. Urban Studies, 42
(2), 197-219.
Miller, D., Sen, A., Malley, L., & Owen, E. (2007). Comparative indicators of
education in the United States and other G-8 countries 2006. National
Centre for Education Statistics: US Department of Education.
Modernising vocational education and training: fourth report on vocational
education and training research in Europe: synthesis report. (2009).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Mohan, R., Tikoo, M., Capela, S., & Berstein, D. (2006). Increasing evaluation use
among policymakers through performance measurement. New Directions for
Evaluation, 12, 89-97.
Moore, P. (2009). UK education, employability and everyday life. Journal for Critical
Education Policy Studies, 7 (1), 243-274.
Mournier, A. (2001). The three logics of skill in French literature: Working Paper No.
66. Sydney: ACIRRT.
Murray, N. (2004). Who gets their hands dirty in the knowledge society? Training for
the skilled trades in New Zealand. Unpublished PhD, Lincoln University.
Naswall, K., Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. (2008). The individual in the changing
working life: an introduction. In K. Naswall, J. Hellgren & M. Sverke (Eds.).
The individual in the changing working life. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
New Zealand economic growth: an analysis of performance and policy. (2004).
Wellington: New Zealand Treasury Department.
New Zealand Skills Strategy Action Plan. (2008). Wellington: New Zealand
Government/Business NZ/NZCTU/Industry Training Federation.
New Zealand Skills Strategy Discussion Paper. (2008). Wellington: New Zealand
Government/Business NZ/NZCTU/Industry Training Federation.
Nielson, S., & Ejler, N. (2008). Improving performance? Exploring the
complementarities between evaluation and performance management.
Evaluation, 14 (2), 171-192.
Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. (2000). Human resource
management: gaining a competitive advantage. McGraw-Hill Publishing.
Nolan, A., & Wong, G. (2004). Evaluating programmes for local economic and
employment development: an overview with policy recommendations. In
Evaluating local and economic and employment development: how to assess
what works among programmes and policies. OECD.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, July
August, 2007 reprinted, 162-171.
Nordman, C., Hayward, P., & Hayward, G. (2006). Returns to on-the-job training: do
skill usage, tasks and workstation matter? Evidence from British workers:
SKOPE Research Paper No. 63. Centre on Skills, Knowledge and
Organisational Performance.
ODonoghue, J., & Maguire, T. (2005). The individual learner, employability and the
253

workplace: a reappraisal of relationships and prophecies. Journal of European

Industrial Training, 29(6), 436-446.
ODonnell, D., McGuire, D., & Cross, C. (2006). Critically challenging some
assumptions in HRD. International Journal of Training and Development, 10
(1), 4-16.
Owen, J. (1998). Towards an outcomes hierarchy for professional university
programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 21, 315-321.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Participative and stakeholder-based policy design, evaluation
and modelling processes. Integrated Assessment, 3 (1), 3-14.
Patton, M. (2002a). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. (2002b). Utilisation-focused evaluation. Evaluation in Education and
Human Services, 49 (5), 425-438.
Pawson, R. (2002) Evidence-based policy: in search of a method. Evaluation, 8 (2),
157-181.
Payne, J. (2004). The changing meaning of skill. SKOPE Issues Paper 1.
Payne J. (2007). Skills in context: what can the UK learn from Australias skill
ecosystem projects? SKOPE Research Paper No. 70. Centre on Skills,
Knowledge and Organisational Performance.
Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2000). Beyond employability. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 24 (6), 729-749.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: building profits by putting people first.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Phillips, J., & Stone, R. (2002). How to measure training results: a practical guide to
tracking the six key indicators. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Phillips, P., & Phillips, J. (2007). The value of learning: how organisations capture
value and ROI. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). Second industrial divide: possibilities for prosperity.
New York: Basic Books.
Pool, I., Baxendine, S., Cochrane, W., & Lindop, J. (2005a). New Zealand regions
1986-2001: Incomes Discussion Paper No. 58. Hamilton: Population Studies
Centre, University of Waikato.
Pool, I., Baxendine, S., Cochrane, W., & Lindop, J. (2005a). New Zealand regions
1986-2001: Industries and Occupations Discussion Paper No. 59. Hamilton:
Population Studies Centre, University of Waikato.
Pool, I., Baxendine, S., Cochrane, W., & Lindop, J. (2006). New Zealand regions
1986-2001: Labour market aspects of human capital: Discussion Paper No.
60. Hamilton: Population Studies Centre, University of Waikato.
Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business
Review, November-December, 77-90.
Porter, S. (2006). Conclusion. In S. Porter & M. Campbell (Eds.). Skills and economic
performance. London: Sector Skills Development Agency.
Prais, S., Jervis, V., & Wagner, K. (1989). Productivity and vocational skills in
services in Britain and German hotels. National Institute Economic Review,
130 (52).
Propper, C., & Wilson, D. (2003). The use and usefulness of performance measures in
the public sector. Bristol: University of Bristol.
Public Sector Industry Training Organisation strategic business plan 2006-2009.
(2006). Wellington: PSITO.
Qualifications and lifelong learning: OECD Policy Brief. (2007). OECD.
254

Rainbird, H. (2002) No rights, just responsibilities: individual demand for continuing

training. In K. Evans, P. Hodkinson & L. Unwin (Eds.). Working to learn:
transforming learning in the workplace. London: Kogan Page.
Rainbird, H., Fuller, A., & Holly, L. (2004). The employment relationship and
workplace learning. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller & A. Munro (Eds.). Workplace
learning in context. London: Routledge.
Rainbird, H., & Munro, A. (2003). Workplace learning and the employment
relationship in the public sector. Human Resource Management, 13 (2), 30-44.
Reform and change in Industry training. (1992). Paper presented at the
Reform and Change in Industry Training Conference, Auckland.
Reich, R. (1992). The work of nations. New York: Vintage Books.
Richardson, S., & Liu, P. (2008). Changing forms of employment and their
implications for the development of skills. National Centre for Vocational
Education Research.
Richardson, S., & Miller-Lewis, L. (2002). Low wage jobs and pathways to better
outcomes. Wellington: New Zealand Treasury Department.
Ridoutt, L., Dutneal, R., Hummel, K., & Smith, C. (2002). Factors influencing the
implementation of training and learning in the workplace. Australian National
Training Authority.
Ridoutt, L., Hummel, K., Dutneal, R., & Smith, C. (2005). The place of recognised
qualifications in the outcomes of training. Australian National Training
Authority.
Ridoutt, L., Smith, C., Hummel, K., & Cheang, C. (2005). What value to employers
give to qualifications? Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education
Research.
Robertson, M. (2004). Building program theory for evaluation: the process through a
political lens. Athens: University of Georgia.
Rogers, P. (2000). Causal models in program theory evaluation. New Directions in
Evaluation, 87, 47-55.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Ruppert, S. (1995). Roots and realities of state-level performance indicator systems.
New Directions for Higher Education, 91, 11-23.
Ryan, R. (2007). Why workplaces matter: the role of workplace practices in economic
transformation. Wellington: New Zealand Department of Labour.
Sabatier, P. (Ed.). (2007). Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
Salaman, G., Storey, J., & Billsberry, J. (2005). Strategic human resource
management: defining the field. In G. Salaman, J. Storey & J. Billberry (Eds.).
Strategic human resource management theory and practice: a reader. Sage
Publications Limited.
Sambrook, S. (2009). Critical HRD: a concept analysis. Personnel Review, 38 (1), 6173.
Santos, A., & Stuart, M. (2003). Employee perceptions and their influence on training
effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal, 13 (1), 27-45.
Saville-Smith, K. (2003). Power and politics: the shaping of evaluation research in
New Zealand. In N. Lunt, C. Davidson & K. McKegg (Eds.). Evaluation
policy and practice: a New Zealand reader. Auckland: Pearson Education
New Zealand Limited.
Scriven, M. (1967). Methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne & M. Scriven
(Eds.). Perspectives in curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
255

Seven pillars of growth: a New Zealand perspective. (2007). Wellington: Business

NZ.
Sheldon, P., & Thornwaite, L. (2005). Employability skills and vocational education
and training policy in Australia: an analysis of employer association agendas.
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43 (3), 404-425.
Skills of improved productivity, employment growth and development. (2008).
Geneva: International Labour Office.
Skills for the knowledge economy: a review of industry training in New Zealand.
(2001). Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Skills imperative: towards a learning culture for New Zealand. (1990). Wellington:
New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Smart food, cool beverage: New Zealands future in the food and beverage sector.
(2006). Wellington: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.
Smart, W. (2006). Outcomes of the New Zealand tertiary education system: a
synthesis of the evidence. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Smelt, S. (1995). Industry training organisations. Wellington: Education Forum.
Smith, A. (Ed.). (2001). Return on investment in training: research findings.
Australian National Training Authority.
Smith, C., & Ridoutt, L. (2007). The importance employers attach to employee
qualifications. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45 (2), 180-199.
Smith, P. (2007). Formula funding of public services. New York: Routledge.
Smits, W. (2007). Industry-specific or generic skills? Conflicting interests of firms
and workers. Labour Economics, 14 (3), 653-663.
Smits, W. (2008). The private benefits from vocation training: a new framework. In
Modernising vocational education and training: fourth report in vocational
training research in Europe a background report. Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.
Stake, R. (1975). Program evaluation particularly responsive evaluation. Chicago:
University of Illinois.
Stasz, C. (2001). Assessing skills for work: two perspectives. Oxford Economic
Papers, 3, 385-405.
Stasz, C., Hayward, G., Oh, S., & Wright, S. (2004). Outcomes and processes in
vocational learning: a review of the literature. Learning and Skills Research
Centre.
Strategic plan for the employer of choice and excellent state servants development
goals. (2006). Wellington: State Services Commission.
Strathdee, R. (2005). Globalization, innovation and the declining significance of
qualifications led social and economic change. Journal of Education Policy,
20 (4), 437-456.
Stroombergen, A., Rose, D., & Nana, G. (2002). Review of the statistical
measurement of human capital. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.
Strugeon, T. (2000). How do we define value chains and production networks? Paper
presented at the Bellagio Value Chains Workshop.
Suchman, E. (1967). Evaluative research: principles and practice in public service
and social action programmes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Swanson, R. (1998). Demonstrating the financial benefit of human resource
development: status and update on the theory and practice. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 9 (3), 238-295.
Tertiary Education Strategy 2002-2007. New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Tertiary Education Strategy 2007-2012 incorporating statement of tertiary education
256

outcomes 2008-2010. (2007). Office of the Ministry for Tertiary Education.

Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-2015. (2010). Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of
Education.
Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. (2002). Performance paradox in the public sector. Public
Performance and Management Review, 25 (3), 267-281.
Thomas, P. (2006). Performance measurement, reporting, obstacles and
accountability: recent trends and future directions. Canberra: Australian
National University.
Tight, M. (2002). Key concepts in adult education and training (2nd ed.). London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Tomorrows standards: the report of the Ministerial working party on assessment for
better learning. (1990). Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Torvatn, H. (1999). Using program theory models in evaluation of industrial
modernisations programs: three case studies. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 22, 73-82.
Tourism and Hospitality Workforce Strategy. (2006). Wellington: Tourism and
Hospitality Leadership Group.
Trotman, I. (2003). Evaluation in New Zealand: a founders reflection. In N. Lunt, C.
Davidson & K. McKegg (Eds.). Evaluation policy and practice: a New
Zealand reader. Auckland: Pearson Education New Zealand Limited.
Turner, D, & Washington, S. (2002). Evaluation in the New Zealand public
management system. In J. Furubo, R. Rist & R. Sandahl (Eds.). International
atlas of evaluation. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Valentin, C. (2006). Researching human resource development: emergence of a
critical approach to HRD enquiry. International Journal of Training and
Development, 10 (1), 17-29.
Vaughan, K., ONeil, P., & Cameron, M. (2011). Successful workplace learning: how
learning happens at work. Wellington: Industry Training Federation.
Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J., Lyons, B., & Kavanagh, M. (2007). The effects of
training design, individual, individual characteristics and work environment on
transfer of training. International Journal of Training and Development, 11
(4), 282-294.
Walters, L., Aydelotte, J., & Miller, L. (2000). Putting more public in policy analysis.
Public Administration Review, 60 (4), 349-359.
Ward, T. (2008). Geographical mobility. In Modernising vocational education and
training: fourth report on vocational training research in Europe
background report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities.
Warhurst, C., & Nickson, D. (2007). Employee experience of aesthetic labour in retail
and hospitality. Work, Employment and Society, 2 (1), 103-120.
Watson, I. (2008). Skills in use: labour market and workplace trends in skills use in
Australia. Paper presented at the Jobs Australia National Conference.
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage Publications
Inc.
What do we mean by skills. (2007). Retrieve July 10, 2008 from http://www.itf.org.nz
Whiteford, A. (2006). Skill shortages in the trades: a report card. Wellington: Labour
Employment and Work in New Zealand.
Wholey, J. (1987). Evaluation assessment: developing programme theory. New
Directions for Evaluation, 33, 77-92.
Wholey, J. (2001). Managing for results: roles for evaluation in a new management
257

era. American Journal of Evaluation, 22 (3), 343-347.

Wilson, R., & Hogarth, T. (2003). Tackling the low skills equilibrium: a review of
issues and some new evidence. UK Department of Trade and Industry.
Wolf, A. (2002). Does education matter: myths about education and economic
growth. London: Penguin Group.
Wolf, A. (2011). Review of vocational education. London: UK Ministry of Education.
Wolf, A., Jenkins, A., & Vignoles, A. (2006). Certifying the workforce: economic
imperative or failed social policy? Journal of Education Policy, 21 (5), 535565.
Wong, G. (2004). Policy learning through evaluation: challenges and opportunities. In
Evaluating local economic and employment development: how to assess what
works among programmes and policies. OECD.
Wood, S., & Wall, T. (2007). Work enrichment and employee voice in human
resource management-performance studies. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18 (7), 1335-1372.
Working smarter: driving productivity growth through skills. (2008). Wellington:
New Zealand Treasury Department.
Workplace productivity challenge: report of the Workplace Productivity Working
Group. (2004). Wellington: Workplace Productivity Working Group.
World class skills: implementing the Leith review of skills in England. (2007).
London: UK Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.
Wright, P., Gardner, T., & Moynihan, L. (2003). The impact of HR practices on the
performance of business units. Human Resource Management, 13 (1), 21-36.
Yang, B. (2003. Political factors in decision making and implications for HRD.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5 (4), 458-479.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications
Inc.

258